Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords]

Bill to be read a Second time.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill (King's Consent signified).

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Milford Haven and Tenby Water Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Corsham Water) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

PRISMATIC COMPASSES AND BINOCULARS (TERRITORIAL OFFICERS).

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is an adequate supply of prismatic compasses and prismatic binoculars for Territorial officers to purchase at reasonable prices as part of their military equipment; what control he exercises to ensure that prismatic compasses offered to the public by retail firms are accurate at the time of sale, or does he insist on Territorial officers purchasing prismatic compasses direct from the Government?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Territorial Army officers are not required to provide themselves with these articles of equipment, which are not available for purchase by them from Army stocks. A training scale of both articles is issuable in peace to Territorial Army units for instructional purposes, and on embodiment a free issue will be made to Territorial Army officers. No control as regards the accuracy of prismatic compasses offered to the public by retail firms is exercised by the War Office.

TERRITORIAL CAMPING SEASON.

Mr. Henry Haslam: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many men aged from 21 to 31 are debarred from serving in the Territorial Army by reason of the fact that their occupations preclude them from going into camp for training; that such men include those engaged in agriculture and in seasonal occupations and that numbers of these men are desirous of serving; and will he consider making arrangements so that these men can obtain the required training at other periods of the year than July and August?

Sir V. Warrender: The camping season for the Territorial Army this year, which began early in May, has now been extended to include October. Every effort is made to fix dates for camp so as best to suit the majority in the units, and intending recruits may be able, by making preliminary inquiries, to join a unit whose camp they could normally attend. Those men who cannot attend camp with their own units can apply to attend camp with other units, or to be attached to Regular units or depots, at a time more convenient to them and their employers.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. Member say whether, when a man exercises the right to train with another unit some distance from his home, his railway fare is paid by the military authorities?

Sir V. Warrender: I should like to have notice of that question. I rather think it is.

CEREMONIAL UNIFORMS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War which units of His Majesty's Army are at present supplied with ceremonial uniforms; and what is the annual cost of the same to the nation?

Sir V. Warrender: The units at present supplied with ceremonial uniforms are: Two regiments of Household Cavalry, 10 battalions of Foot Guards, "K" Battery, Royal Horse Artillery. With three battalions of Foot Guards serving abroad, the extra annual cost is approximately £42,000.

Mr. Day: Is any further change contemplated in the supply of these uniforms?

Sir V. Warrender: I should like to know what the hon. Member means.

Mr. Day: Is it intended to supply further regiments with ceremonial uniforms

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir.

EXPLOSIONS, ROYAL ARSENAL.

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any financial provision has been granted for the dependants of the victims in the recent explosions in the Royal Arsenal works on 18th and 19th May; and whether the amount of compensation payable is the same on behalf of those who were engaged on civilian or military duties?

Sir V. Warrender: The widows of the soldiers who were killed in the explosion on 18th May continue to receive family allowance up to 15th June, and will receive awards of pensions thereafter in respect of themselves and their children under the provisions of the Pay Warrant. The dependants of the civilian staff killed in the explosions on 17th and 18th May are being considered for awards of compensation under the provisions of the Government Scheme of Compensation framed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The provisions of this scheme are not the same as those of the Pay Warrant under which pensions are awarded to the dependants of soldiers, and there are various factors which make any direct comparison of the respective benefits difficult.

Mrs. Adamson: Will the Financial Secretary kindly expedite this question of allowances for dependants?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think there has been any avoidable delay. It is a question of ascertaining the amounts.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

HIGHLANDS

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet come to a decision on the Highland Economic Committee's Report; if not, when can that decision be expected; and, as the matter is urgent, whether he will see that no further time be lost in taking action?

15. Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the resolutions dealing with a programme of reconstruction for the High lands, passed by a conference recently held by the crofters' unions at Mallaig, among which was one for the setting up of a representative commission; and whether he is now in a position to give any information regarding the steps the Government will take to assist in carrying through that programme?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I am not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope to do so before the Recess.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State inform the House the reason for the delay on this very urgent matter? He agreed long ago that it was an urgent matter and that it would have his immediate attention.

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member knows that the Highland problem is exceedingly difficult to solve, and that we have to consult a number of local authorities.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that this has been a problem for many years, and is it not time that the Government took some action in the matter in order to prevent the depopulation of the High lands?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Does not the Secretary of State agree that there are a number of steps that might be taken immediately with general agreement in regard to the Highlands?

Mr. Colville: I am looking at the problem in all its aspects, and I have in mind the particular question referred to by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean).

Mr. Gallacher: Is there not complete agreement on the part of Scottish Members of all parties on this particular matter?

Mr. Colville: There may be agreement that something should be done, but there is not agreement as to what the steps should be.

DEER FORESTS.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in 1892 the Deer Forest Commission reported that nearly 2,000,000 acres then devoted to sport in Scotland were suitable for crofters' holdings; and whether, as rearing human beings in the Highlands of Scotland is of more importance to the British Empire than raising deer, he is prepared to do something outstanding for the Highlands and Islands in keeping with the conscription of the youth of our country?

Mr. Colville: In their report of 1895 the Royal Commission, to which the hon. Member refers, scheduled areas totalling 1,783,000 acres in the crofting counties as suitable partly for small holdings and partly for moderately sized farms. The areas in question included large grazing farms, grouse moors and deer forests. Since the date of the report a considerable proportion of this land has been utilised for the settlement of small holders. It should however be borne in mind that there are several factors, including quality of land as well as the general change in standards of living, which limit the possibilities of land settlement in deer forests. With regard to the general question of improving economic conditions in the Highlands and Islands, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to his previous question.

Colonel Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that the inter-departmental committee that was set up after the last War reported that about one-third of the area of the deer forests is no good for agriculture or forestry, that it is only fit for deer and nothing else, and has no other rate able value at all?

Mr. Kirkwood: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that question, is he not aware that the Highlands of Scotland, before the clearances, maintained a hardy and intelligent race and that the Island of Skye during the Napoleonic wars sent 20,000 men to the British Army?

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is

aware that over one-sixth of the total area of Scotland is now returned as deer forest; that more than 1,000,000 acres have been withdrawn from cultivation for this purpose since 1920; and whether he will introduce legislation imposing a tax on the value of this land so as to bring it back into cultivation with the minimum of delay?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the question, but I find that the hon. Member is not correct in his statement in the second part of the question, as the total area returned as deer forest in 1938 was some 80,000 acres less than in 1920. I am not prepared to adopt the proposal he suggests.

Viscountess Astor: Could my right hon. Friend suggest that we would give to the hon. Member who asked the question a farm on a deer forest if he promised to make his living out of it?

Mr. Davidson: Who is "we '?

Viscountess Astor: Me.

Mr. Kirkwood: I will accept the Noble Lady's offer, but I am not asking a farm for myself. I want the Highlands of Scotland to be opened up, so that with all our modern means we may be able to have tens of thousands of people living healthy, happy lives in the land of their forefathers.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give information as to the number of pensions at 65 years of age and widows' pensions, respectively, which have been refused to applicants owing to the restriction imposed by Section 6 (3) of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?

Mr. Colville: I regret that the exact information is not available. I understand, however, that the number of claims for old age and widows' pensions which are disallowed by reason of the restriction referred to is small.

Mr. Mathers: Would it not be possible for the Secretary of State to take out these figures for one or two years in order to show the size of the problem and the desirability of making a change in the law in this respect, because of its hardship?

Mr. Colville: I cannot give the hon. Member the exact figures but I can tell him that out of some 36,000 applications disallowed in Scotland since 1930 the number of rejections by reason of this restriction is of the order of 100. That gives some idea of the size of the problem.

TAILORS' HALL, EDINBURGH.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in 1923 or at any other time, any undertaking was given to the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland by the city and royal burgh of Edinburgh that the Tailors' Hall buildings would be reconstructed, and the architectural features preserved?

Mr. Colville: I understand that in 1923 when giving an undertaking to preserve features of architectural interest in an improvement scheme area the corporation stated that it was their intention to preserve as far as possible the facade of Tailors' Hall Buildings. They have since reconsidered the question and decided on demolition. I am informed that they propose to incorporate certain lettered and carved stones in the screen wall to be erected on the site.

Mr. Hannah: Ought not the capital of Scotland to keep its promise and can any Scot view with complacency the destruction of this splendid example of seventeenth century architecture?

Mr. George Griffiths: Why do not the Government resign?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member must remember that this is the action of a local authority, and that the Government are not responsible.

AGRICULTURAL LOANS.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation charges 4¼ percent, upon loans advanced by it, whereas the English Agricultural Mortgage Corporation charges only 4¼ percent.; and whether, under the Agricultural Development Bill it is proposed to recoup Scottish farmers for the extra charges made upon them for loans in the past and assure them of treatment in the future equal to that enjoyed by English fanner borrowers?

Mr. Colville: I am aware that different rates of interest have been and are charged on agricultural loans in Scotland and in England and Wales and that the present English rate for new loans is rather lower than the Scottish rate, and I am in consultation with the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation on the subject. It is not, however, the case that higher charges have fallen on Scottish farmers in general in respect of these loans since the inception of the two schemes.

Mr. Stewart: Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that under Clause 32 of the Agricultural Development Bill, it is proposed to give a grant, or it may be a loan, to the English Corporation for 20 years, amounting to £60,000 a year, apparently to enable them to offer loans at £ per cent, less than the Scottish farmers have to pay, and why should there be that difference?

Mr. Colville: It would not be possible to explain this by means of question and answer. No doubt my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of discussing it on the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State standing up for Scotland in the Cabinet?

CROFTING COUNTIES (SHEEP CLEARANCES).

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of acres in each of the crofting counties from which clearances of sheep have taken place in the last 15 years for purposes of sport, afforestation, and for other reasons, respectively?

Mr. Colville: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available. I should add, however, that the sheep population in these counties has increased by nearly 200,000 since 1921.

Mr. Maclean: Since the increase of sheep is by such a number as 200,000, does not the Secretary of State consider that it would be advisable that steps should be taken to increase the man-power of the Highlands?

POLICE, GLASGOW.

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Chief Constable of Glasgow has


appointed five superannuated superintendents to positions in Glasgow; and whether the police committee of the town council and/or the Lord Provost of Glasgow were consulted before those appointments were made?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that no such appointments have been made by the chief constable.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that that statement has already appeared in practically all the Glasgow newspapers, and that it is asserted that this was done without consultation with the police committee, and if the chief constable, as I understand, is taking steps to appoint these five individuals, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the chief constable consults with the police committee of the town council?

Mr. Colville: I have been in touch with the proper authority, and the answer is as I have given it.

Mr. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the powers that he possesses to see that the chief constable does not make appointments without consulting the police committee of the City of Glasgow?

Mr. Colville: I have no doubt the chief constable recognises the need of consulting with the police committee.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the chief of police of Glasgow comes partly under the power of the local authority, and that questions which the local authority considers to be important cannot be dealt with without consulting it?

SANATORIUM, EAST FORTUNE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the feeling created by the proposed Air Ministry encroachment upon the South-Eastern Counties of Scotland Sanatorium at East Fortune; and whether he will immediately take steps in consultation with the Secretary of State for Air to protect this health service?

Mr. Colville: I have received representations on the matter to which the hon. Member refers and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman shed his dignity as Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter and deal with it as representative of a county that is prejudicially affected by this proposal?

Mr. Colville: I shall do my duty as Secretary of State and at the same time as representing my constituency.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Air Ministry could find ample room in the Caird shipyard in Greenock?

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (DEFENCE ESTIMATES).

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received any particulars as to the recent increase in the armaments of Eire?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): Yes, Sir. Particulars of the increases in the Eire Defence Estimates were contained in statements made in the Dail by the Minister of Defence of Eire on 22nd March and by the Minister of Finance on 10th May.

Sir R. Ross: Will my right hon. Friend send me a copy, as I do not take in their reports?

Sir T. Inskip: I should be very glad to send my hon. Friend a copy of both statements.

Sir R. Ross: Has my right hon. Friend any idea whether the additions to the armed forces are for defence or offence?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of Order. Is it right that an hon. Member of this House should attack the Government of one of the Dominions?

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any Staff conversations are taking place between this country and Eire?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

STATISTICS (NOTTINGHAMSHIRE).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the average out-


put of coal per man-shift worked in the coal mines of Nottinghamshire for each of the years 1929 to 1938; the average pithead price per ton of coal disposable commercially; and the average wage per shift paid for the same period;
(2) the average weekly wage per man paid in the coal mines of Nottingham

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE


Year.
Average Output of Saleable Coal per Wage-earner.
Average Cash Earnings per Wage-earner (exclusive of the value of allowances in kind).*
Proceeds per ton of coal disposable commercially.


Per man-shift worked.
Per week.
Per man-shift worked.
Per week.





Cwts.
Tons.
Cwts.
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
s.
d.


1929
…
…
24.91
5
11
10
6 ½
2
6
11
13
6


1930
…
…
25.06
5
9
10
6 ¾
2
6
2
13
3¾


1931
…
…
26.33
5
12
10
7 ¼
2
5
4
13
6


1932
…
…
26.45
5
19
10
6 ½
2
3
4
13
6½


1933
…
…
27.49
5
14
10
6 ½
2
3
7
13
1


1934
…
…
28.38
5
19
10
7 ¼
2
4
7
12
10


1935
…
…
28.98
6
3
10
7 ½
2
5
2
12
10


1936
…
…
29.71
6
11
11
8 ½
2
11
9
14
2


1937
…
…
30.47
7
7
13
6 ¼
2
5
1
15
1¾


1938
…
…
30.66
6
13
14
4 ¼
3
2
4
16
0½


*The average value of allowances in kind is not available for Nottinghamshire separately, but for North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, it was about 4d. per man-shift worked, or is. 5d. per wage-earner per week.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents to miners employed in the coal mines of Nottinghamshire during each of the last 10 years, stating the causes of these accidents?

Mr. Lloyd: In view of the size of the statistical statement involved, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, send him the information asked for and place a copy in the Library.

AUTOMATIC FIREDAMP DETECTORS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary for Mines when the last series of pit trials were completed for the use of gas-alarm detectors; and whether any future experiments are to be made or are being made at the present time?

Mr. Lloyd: The last completed series of official pit trials of automatic firedamp detectors was that carried out on the Ring-rose Firedamp Alarms towards the end of 1937 on behalf of the Committee on the Firedamp Detector Regulations; and fresh regulations have since been made, based

shire, and the average weekly output per man, for each of the years 1929 to 1938?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these questions in the form of a statistical table which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

on the Committee's recommendations, which require the use of automatic detectors in certain circumstances. A number of other appliances, some of which have received tests underground, are in various stages of development, but none has yet been officially approved.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how many remain to be tested?

Mr. Lloyd: I think two.

Mr. T. Smith: Has any progress been made with regard to the automatic detectors?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is a different question.

SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether any steps are being taken to develop the oil-from-coal scheme for South Wales; will he also give the number of miners unemployed in the South Wales coalfield for the year 1938 and for each month separately for 1939 to the latest available date?

Mr. Lloyd: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my predecessor gave to him on 14th March last. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the Official Report a statistical statement giving the figures asked for in the second part of the question.

Following is the answer:

Number of Insured Persons aged 14 to 64 recorded as unemployed in the Coal
Mining Industry in South Wales and Monmouthshire each month in 1938 and to May, 1939:


—
1938.
1939.


January
…
…
27,840
31,017


February
…
…
27,521
40,838


March
…
…
31,902
34,320


April
…
…
39,493
29,680


May
…
…
45,948
23,345


June
…
…
37,832
—


July
…
…
34,300
—


August
…
…
29,443
—


September
…
…
31,837
—


October
…
…
27,797
—


November
…
…
32,697
—


December
…
…
34,431
—

FIRE OUTBREAKS (NOTIFICATION).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether notification of outbreaks of fire on the coal-face or in the gob are sent to his Department immediately such fires are discovered; and will he consider exercising the power given to him under Section 81 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, to order, by regulation, that such out- breaks shall be notified to the inspector for the division and also to the person nominated by the workers as set down for notices of accidents in Section 80?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. The law at present requires that all cases of fire below-ground and of certain other dangerous occurrences shall be reported forthwith to the inspector of the division. If loss of life or serious personal injury results, then notice must also be given to a duly appointed workmen's representative, but if no serious personal injury is caused there is no obligation on the management to notify the workmen's representative. I have no power to alter the law in this respect, but I will note the matter for consideration in connection with the preparation of the new Safety Bill.

Mr. Tinker: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman's reply that notifica-

tion of fires on the coal-face must be sent to his Department, and, if so, did an inspector visit the Ashley Green Collieries when the fire broke out there?

Mr. Lloyd: I could not give a detailed answer. I have no reason to believe that the regulations were not carried out, but I would not like to give a definite answer without notice.

Mr. G. Griffiths: How long does it take to put out a gob fire after there has been notification?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT, 1938 (DOMINION GOVERNMENTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what information he has received as to whether, and if so, in what manner, His Majesty's Government in New South Wales propose to amend the law of that State in order that it shall correspond with the quota and other Sections of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, Great Britain; and whether he has any information as to the intention of His Majesty's Governments in Dominions elsewhere, of introducing comparable legislation?

Sir T. Inskip: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply made to him on 21st February, which indicated the pro visions of the recent New South Wales Act. I am not aware of any further proposal to amend the law relating to films in New South Wales, and have no in formation that it is intended to introduce comparable amendments to the cinematograph law elsewhere in the Dominions.

Mr. Day: May we be informed as to whether New South Wales has asked the British Government to introduce amending legislation so that reciprocal arrangements can be made for films produced in New South Wales and in this country?

Sir T. Inskip: I understand that question is being considered by the Board of Trade with the producers concerned in this country.

Mr. Day: Has that suggestion been made by the New South Wales Government?

Sir T. Inskip: I have said that I understand the question is being considered at their instance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (BOUNDARY COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Sir R. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs whether, in view of recent pronouncements by the Prime Minister of Eire which are not consistent with the ratification of the boundaries of Northern Ireland by the Parliament of the Irish Free State, in December, 1925, he will now publish the report of the Feetham Boundary Commission as giving a considered and impartial view of the boundary question?

Sir T. lnskip: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that in 1923 it was agreed that the Report prepared by the Boundary Commission should be with-held from publication, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by publication in present circumstances.

Sir R. Ross: Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that at the same time it was agreed that the boundary should be accepted by the Irish Free State as definite and final, and in view of their not having done so, why should the only impartial Report on the subject be suppressed?

Sir T. lnskip: The Report is not suppressed. At the time, it was agreed that it should not be published.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that Eire embraces the whole of Ireland?

Sir R. Ross: Nobody is aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (MINING LICENCES, NATIVES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of Africans in Southern Rhodesia who, apart from alluvial mining, are in possession of registration and inspection certificates and mining on their own, and owning their own mines?

Sir T. lnskip: As the hon. Member was informed in reply to his question of 9th February, 1937, no natives in Southern Rhodesia had up to that date registered

mining claims. I will, however, inquire of the Government of Southern Rhodesia whether the position has since altered.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the absence of registration is due to any process of administrative discrimination against Africans?

Sir T. lnskip: I have no reason to believe that is the reason. I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (EXCHANGE OF MATERIALS).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement concerning the progress of the negotiations with the United States of America concerning the exchange of American cotton and wheat for strategic raw materials?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to questions by the hon. Members for the Forest of Dean (Mr.Price), and for Oldham (Mr. Hamilton Kerr) on 23rd May.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these negotiations are proceeding smoothly and without hitch, and whether he anticipates their being brought to a conclusion before the end of the present Session?

Mr. Stanley: I should not like to give any definite date. The hon. and gallant Member will realise that there are a large number of points to be considered but the negotiations are proceeding quite satisfactorily.

JAPANESE TINNED FISH (IMPORTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of tinned fish exported by Japan to this country in each of the last three years and up to the latest available date this year?

Mr. Stanley: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate such information as is available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mander: As I am only asking for four figures would it not be possible to give them now?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps I have over estimated the hon. Member's curiosity. I have given him figures for a number of different types of fish.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that there has been a considerable increase in Japanese exports to this country, and would not the British public be rendering considerable service to China in her resistance to Japanese aggression by declining to purchase these exports?

Mr. Stanley: I have not yet got the figures for 1938, but the figures for 1937 in particular show a very considerable decline on those for 1936.

Following is the information:

Statement showing the quantity of Tinned Fish exported from Japan to the United Kingdom in the years 1936 and 1937.


(Abstracted from Official Japanese Trade Returns.)


Descriptions.
1936.
1937.



100 Kin.
100 Kin.


Comestibles in Tin—


Crabs
57.421
47,280


Salmon and Trout
353.535
334.069


Tuna Fish
52
320


Tomato Sardines
17.055
19,080


Sardines, other
53
1


Mackerel
14
143


Herrings
5.725
5,170


Other Fish
29
121


Abalones (or Awabi)
7
6


Other Shell Fish
2
38


Total
433.893
406,228


Notes.


(1)Similar particulars are not yet available for any period subsequent to 1937.


(2)100 kin.=132.28 lbs.

CHEMICAL COMPANIES.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements, to the knowledge of his Department, exist between the Trafford Chemical Company, the I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G., and the Imperial Chemical Industries; have any licences been granted to any of these companies, and, if so, for what purpose; and, under the joint arrangements, are any Government contracts being carried out?

Mr. Stanley: I am informed that the shares of the Trafford Chemical Company

are held by the other two companies mentioned, and that the Trafford Chemical Company, when in operation, will devote itself primarily to the manufacture of certain speciality dyestuffs which have hitherto been imported. I am not aware that any Government contracts with this company are in contemplation. No applications have been made by the company for licences to import dyestuffs, but licences are granted frequently to I.G. Dyestuffs, Limited, and occasionally to Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited.

Mr. Smith: In view of the by-products produced by this industry, and in view of the aggressive intentions of two continental countries, are not arrangements of this character to be deprecated from the point of view of the people of this country?

Mr. Stanley: It seems to me to be of immense advantage to the people of this country that dyestuffs which at the pre sent moment have to be imported should in future be manufactured here.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what form of association exists between the Trafford Chemical Company and I.C.I, and the I. G. Farbenindustrie A.G.?

Mr Stanley: I have already said that the shares of the Trafford Company are held by the other two companies.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any Ministers on the Front Bench are shareholders in those companies?

Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what proportion the shares are held by those two companies?

Mr. Stanley: I.C.I, hold a majority.

SHIPPING AND SHIPBUILDING (SUBSIDY).

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement with regard to the precise form in which assistance which will be given to the British Mercantile Marine, and if not, when he expects to be able to make an announcement?

Mr. Storey: asked the President of the Board of Trade (I) whether he can now say when definite proposals will


be announced in connection with the assistance to be given for shipbuilding;
(2) whether he can now say when it is proposed to introduce legislation to give effect to the Government's proposals with regard to assistance for merchant ship ping?

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the average rates of freight in the deep-sea and near trades for the first five months of this year were below those of the standard year of 1929, whilst at the same time working costs have risen sharply, and that at present no financial assistance is available towards the costs of current voyages; and when the necessary legislation in connection with the proposed shipping subsidy will be introduced?

Mr. Stanley: The preparation of the schemes of assistance proposed in my statement of 28th March is nearly completed, and the Bill will be submitted to Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister say when the Government intend to give assistance to old age pensioners?

PROCESSED MILK (IMPORTS).

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the main purpose of the action which he is taking under the Agricultural Marketing Order dealing with the control of imports of processed milk is to ensure an economic price for that product in this country, whether it will be possible to make it a condition of the licences to be granted to importers that they shall undertake to sell their produce in conformity with the terms and conditions fixed for home-produced commodities of the same type by the appropriate trade associations?

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that in fixing the conditions of licences or certificates granted to importers of processed milk he will have regard to the desirability of ensuring that importers will sell their pro ducts on the same terms and conditions as those fixed by the various Processed Milk Associations for home-produced commodities of the same type?

Mr. Stanley: The object of regulating imports is to maintain the effective operation of the milk marketing schemes, which has been threatened by the volume of supplies of processed milks coming on the market recently. I am confident that the limitations arranged will, with the co-operation of the International Conference which it is proposed to set up, achieve this object.

EXPORT GUARANTEES.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay it down as a principle of national policy when granting, on political grounds, credits to friendly foreign countries, that the transactions should not be by way of monetary loans or bank credits, but by the use of the Export Guarantees Act, 1939; and will he, if necessary, extend suitably the amount of guarantees to be available beyond the present total limit?

Sir J. Simon: His Majesty's Government have no power to grant loans or credits to other countries, and have no present intention of asking Parliament for power to grant or guarantee loans or credits to other countries otherwise than in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Export Guarantees Act, 1939. In reply to the second part of the question, the possibility of increasing the limit of these guarantees would be considered when the necessity arose.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, as a substitute for the flotation in London of loans to foreign borrowers while the loan market here is closed to such borrowers, make it more generally known to them that they can, by arrangements acceptable to British exporters, obtain on credit British productions by the facilities afforded under the Export Guarantees Act, 1939?

Sir J. Simon: I think that the facilities available under the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, are already well known to all concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).

Mr. Gledhill: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the scheme for war-risks insurance has now been completed; and, if so, when the necessary legislation is likely to be introduced?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 5th June to the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson).

Mr. Bellenger: In the absence of legislation, are any payments being made by His Majesty's Government on this account?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with any scheme of insurance against risk of war damage, he will consider the practicability of establishing a pool-fund, to be contributed to by all property-owners as well as the State?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on this subject on 31st January, 1939, and to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Sir W. Edge) on 5th June. The proposal for a pool-fund, involving a State contribution, would not be compatible with the policy of the Government in this matter.

Mr. Cocks: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when that statement is likely to be implemented by legislation; and will legislation cover the case of land?

Sir J. Simon: I think the matter is one which should be raised with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I am afraid I cannot answer at the moment further than I have done.

Mr. Kirkwood: In the event of air raids or anything like that, the property owners are going to be compensated. Will the Chancellor make sure that, in any arrangement that is come to, human beings will be looked after just as well as property?

Sir J. Simon: I remember the hon. Member raising this point before. He will recall that I answered his question then, and answered it, I think, to his satisfaction. If he will look at the statement—of which I can send him a copy if he wishes—he will see that that is very well provided for.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there continues to exist among property owners and traders a great deal of anxiety? Will he give that anxiety his consideration?

Sir J. Simon: It is constantly receiving consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

CREWS (WASHING FACILITIES).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has noted the conclusion of the medical officer of health for the Port of Liverpool, based on an examination of 500 vessels, that the fresh water storage of cargo vessels is ample for the modern requirements of a hot and cold water supply to wash-places, and that the need exists for an improved method of distribution of the water with better facilities and a sufficient number of conveniently accessible receptacles for ablutions; and whether he will have an inquiry made into this aspect of the question with a view to the issue of instructions designed to improve the standards in existing vessels;
(2) whether he has examined the results of the further inquiry made by the medical officer of health for the Port of Liverpool into the question of providing a pure, copious and conveniently accessible water supply in ships; whether he has noted that more than three times the number of foreign vessels had hot and cold water laid on to wash-places as compared with British vessels of similar type; and whether he will consider amending the instructions to surveyors so as to provide that fresh water is laid on to the wash basins in all new vessels?

Mr. Stanley: I have seen the report mentioned. With regard to existing ships, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on the 21st February. In the case of new ships, hot and cold fresh water is usually laid on to the crew's wash-places, except in the case of some small vessels where the galley and the wash-places are both situated aft or amidships. The needs of the situation are, I think, met by the provisions of the current Instructions.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has stated what is happening in the case of new tonnage, but is it not the case, out of 500 ships examined two years running which have been reported to his Department, that on 350 of the ships the men have to go from the forecastle head to amidships for their cold water, and for hot water to the galley, and whether with


an open bucket on a windy day he thinks it possible to get the water forward at all? Will he do his best to see that the water is properly conducted to the forecastle from those two places?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member knows that we are trying to do everything that is practicable in the case of the older ships, but he knows perfectly well the almost insuperable structural difficulties which may be met with in the older ships.

Viscountess Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that some of the owners of these ships are trying as hard as the Government are trying? If not, should not they be made to?

Mr. Stanley: I am not prepared to share the Noble Lady's inevitable suspicions.

Viscountess Astor: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the report which he has had upon these ships as dealing with suspicion? Is it not a fact that they are perfectly abominable?

COASTING TRADE (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the excessive hours worked by officers and men in the coastal trade, which give the coastal owners an unfair advantage over their principal competitors, the railways and road hauliers; and whether any progress is being made in the direction of reducing the hours worked on coasting vessels?

Mr. Stanley: As I informed the hon. Member on 14th February last, the general conditions of service in the coasting trade are primarily matters for the National Maritime Board. I may add that I understand that the sailors' and firemen's panels of that board have recently set up a special sub-committee to consider the conditions of employment of men in the home and coasting trades.

Mr. Smith: While what the right hon. Gentleman has said is true, is it not a fact that officers and men are working from 80 to 100 hours a week in coastal steamers, and are competing with internal transport people who are on an 8-hour day? I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to ask the Maritime Board to expedite this matter.

Colonel Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coasting vessels are

seldom at sea for more than three days at a time and that as a result the crews, particularly those in colliers, get home much more frequently than those in deep-sea vessels?

Mr. Smith: It is 24 hours a day for three days.

RESERVE OF MERCHANT SHIPS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any second-hand tonnage is being purchased by the Government; and will he give the names of his Advisory Committee upon these transactions?

Mr. Stanley: A considerable number of ships have been offered for the reserve of merchant ships and these offers are being considered by the Advisory Committee as quickly as possible. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a list of members of the Advisory Committee in the Official Report.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware of any sales of British vessels to foreign buyers?

Mr. Stanley: Offhand I cannot say that I am aware of any.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is this a case of second-hand tonnage for a second-hand Government?

Following is the list:

Merchant Ship Reserve Advisory Committee Members.

Sir David J. Owen, Chairman. Formerly General Manager of the Port of London Authority.

Mr. C. C. Arnell. Of C. C. Arnell & Company, Shipbrokers.

Mr. G. W. C. Davis, O.B.E., Chief Accountant, Board of Trade.

Mr. G. Tristram Edwards. Joint Managing Director, Smith's Dock Company, Limited, Shipbuilders and Ship-Repairers,

Mr. W. Graham, M.B.E. Mercantile Marine Department, Board of Trade.

Mr. F. A. Griffiths, M.C. Assistant Secretary, Board of Trade.

Captain M. J. Mansergh, R.N. Director of the Trade Division of the Naval Staff, Admiralty.

Sir John Niven. Of Andrew Weir & Company, Shipowners.

Oral Answers to Questions — OXFORD GROUP

Mr. Alan Herbert: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the opinion is widely held that if his decision in the matter of Dr. Buchman is maintained he will be condoning a course of conduct which was, and is, likely to mislead the public; and whether, before giving effect to that decision, he will receive a deputation of Members of this House who view it with grave concern?

Mr. Stanley: I have received a great number of representations from Members of this House and from persons outside it both for and against the grant of the application for the association referred to by my hon. Friend to be registered by the name "Oxford Group." I gave the fullest consideration to all these conflicting views before exercising in this case the power—which is of a quasi-judicial character—conferred upon the Board of Trade by the Companies Act in regard to applications of this nature. In the circumstances, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by receiving a deputation.

Mr. Herbert: May I ask my right hon. Friend, who is the guardian of commercial morality, whether before making his decision he examined the financial methods and records of Dr. Buchman and his followers, and in particular whether he took note of the severe comments made by Mr. Justice Bennett in a recent law suit?

Mr. Stanley: Of course the hon. Member will realise that one of the consequences of being registered as a company will be that the accounts of the group will have to be kept in a specified form.

Mr. Herbert: Is it not clear that Dr. Buchman and his followers have for the past 10 years been obtaining money under false pretences, and does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that the Board of Trade should now condone those activities in the past and legalise them for the future?

Mr. Stanley: I have no connection whatever with the Oxford Group, but I do not think that a statement of that kind that they have been obtaining money under false pretences is one that should go out from this House.

Mr. Muff: Is it in order for any hon. Member of this House to impute motives

of such a nature? Is it not well known that not one of the workers of the Oxford Group receives a penny piece in salary and that those workers are like magistrates in that they belong to the great unpaid?

Mr. Gallacher: Call it Hitler's movement.

Sir Cooper Rawson: On a point of Order. I was referred to twice in the House of Commons last Friday by the hon. and learned Member for somewhere in Scotland.

Mr. Herbert: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in the memorandum and articles of association of the Oxford Group Company it is proposed to include a declaration that the group has no association of any kind with Oxford University or with the Oxford Society?

Mr. Stanley: I am informed that the promoters propose to include in the articles of association a statement that the group has no official connection with Oxford University or with the Oxford Society.

Mr. Herbert: Is that not a final exhibition of the entire dishonesty of these canting cheats?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not talk of people in that way, because it is only likely to lead to trouble.

Mr. Herbert: I am looking for trouble.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister recognise from these questions the intervention of the hon. Member on Friday and his statements which have appeared in the Press, that this has become a matter of personal vendetta on the part of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert)?

Mr. Herbert: No. Common honesty.

Mr. Stanley: I said in my reply that I have attempted to deal with this matter in a quasi-judicial way, as I have to do, and I remain uninfluenced by this sort of statement, either on one side or the other.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of so arranging duties between


Ministers that the number of paid Members of the Government is not increased by the creation of new offices by legislation, such as the Ministry of Supply Bill, and that other offices, such as the Lord President of the Council, should be held concurrently with other posts?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member's suggestion is noted, but the cost of Ministers' salaries is only one of the considerations which have to be taken into account in the arrangement of their duties.

Mr. Mander: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that upwards of 100 Members of this House are dependent at the present time in one way or another upon the Government for their appointment; would he consider the undesirability of increasing that number and the possibility of the office of the Minister of Supply being held concurrently with such an office as that of the Lord President of the Council, in order not to increase the number of Ministers?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be the same question over again.

Mr. Sandys: Is it not most undesirable to reduce the number of Cabinet Ministers without Departmental preoccupations who are free to give their time to the formulation of broad policy?

Mr. Dingle Foot: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility is being fully maintained, having regard to the fact that two Cabinet Ministers were absent unpaired from the Division on the Government's Palestine proposals?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Foot: Is it consistent with the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility that Ministers should be absent from a Division of such importance, while the back bench supporters of the Government were expected to go into the Lobby?

The Prime Minister: It does not affect the point that my right hon. Friends naturally accept full responsibility for collective Cabinet decisions.

Mr. Cocks: Is the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility as fully maintained now as it was when the Cabinet contained Members of the Liberal party?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS SERVICES, WALES (REPORT).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, following upon the publication of the report on the Anti-Tuberculosis Services in Wales, there is grave disquiet at the lack of effective supervision and co-ordination of public services in the Principality; that there is a widespread demand for the creation of an office of Secretary for Wales; and whether he is prepared to give further consideration to this proposal, or other proposals, to remove the present dissatisfaction?

The Prime Minister: The report referred to by the hon. Member is receiving the consideration of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health who has already indicated some of the steps which are being taken to remedy the defects disclosed in the report. Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to await the results of my right hon. Friend's consideration.

Mr. Griffiths: Will this include consideration of whatever changes are desirable and necessary in local government in Wales and in the supervision of that local government by the national authority?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take those matters into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK OF ENGLAND.

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of promoting legislation to convert the Bank of England from a privately-owned body into a State institution, providing for the appointment of the governor and deputy-governor by the Government, and the setting up of an advisory council representing the Government, industry, commerce, labour, and the deposit banks?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not think that recent events have shown the great importance of closer association between the Government and the Bank of England, in fact as well as in theory; and is it not a fact that legislation on those lines has been recommended by Members of all parties?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to the original question is still "No, Sir."

Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that only the retention of a private banking system would allow assets to be sent to a country to oppose which we are conscripting the youth of the country?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as it is not in the national interest for shares in the Bank of England to be held by foreign investors, he will consider introducing legislation to prevent this?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. I do not think that there is any evidence that such legislation is needed.

Mr. Bellenger: Is not the evidence already available, namely, that a holding of £500 of stock or interest in the Bank of England entitles the holder to a vote; and is it not conceivable that considerable power might thereby be placed in foreign hands?

Sir J. Simon: What I said was that I do not think that at the moment legislation, is needed. My reason for saying that is that the amount of these holdings is believed to be quite trifling, and that in any case each holder has only one vote, whatever the size of his holding.

Mr. Mander: Does not this show that it is inadvisable that the Bank of England should continue in private hands?

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent co-operation takes place and con tact is maintained between the Treasury and the Bank of England in financial and economic matters affecting the national interests?

Sir J. Simon: In all necessary and proper cases, there is full co-operation and contact between the Treasury and the Bank of England.

Mr. Henderson: Is it a fact that His Majesty's Government were informed of the proposal of the Bank for International Settlements to transport this gold to the German Government from French Government sources? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it undesirable that such information should be received from abroad, and not from the directors of the Bank of England?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think that that was the source. What I stated was that information reached us from a Continental source that the German authorities were seeking to get possession of some of this Czech gold.

Mr. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it undesirable, from whatever Continental source the information was received, that such information was not first received from the Bank of England directors?

Sir J. Simon: In fairness to all concerned, I must point out that I have no reason to suppose that the directors of the Bank of England, would be the persons to know of it first.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement that the. Bank of England is in accord on matters of foreign policy with the Government with his ignorance of what the Governor of the Bank of England did in his capacity as a representative of the Bank of England on the Bank for International Settlements, and with the part that he played there in that matter?

Sir J. Simon: I think that this matter has been very fully explained. The reason some hon. Members do not accept the explanation is that they seek to disagree with what has happened. Surely it is quite plain to everybody that the British Government cannot answer for the Bank for International Settlements. It has been made abundantly clear that the demand made by the Bank for International Settlements on the Bank of Eng land was one that had to be met.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to evade the issue. The question is what action the representatives of the Bank of England took on the directorate of the Bank for International Settlements. What I am asking is, how he reconciles the attitude that they took with the statement that the Bank of England pursues a line in matters of foreign policy which is in accord with the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. Simon: I think the explanation is very plain. I do not think that I or the British Government ought to be held responsible for the action of the Bank for International Settlements. I cannot agree


that financial and economic matters affecting the national interest are being dealt with without contact between the Treasury and the Bank of England.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman said to me last Thursday that in matters of foreign policy the directors of the Bank of England were in accord with His Majesty's Government. I am asking how he reconciles that with his statement.

Mr. Speaker: We have already had two or three Debates on this subject, and we cannot have another one at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOG LICENCE DUTY.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to discontinue the issue of dog licences on 1st January each year, and put these on the basis of month to month, as in the case of wireless receiving licences?

Sir J. Simon: The Dog Licence Duty in England and Wales is not an Imperial but a local taxation duty. I doubt whether the hon. Member's proposal would be practicable or desirable, but in any case I could not consider legislation to give effect to it unless it were supported by the various local authorities concerned.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that in making this change he would be avoiding the evading of taxation and that there is in this matter at the present time an especial hardship upon those who breed dogs for sale and have to licence them, finding it difficult in the latter part of the year to get rid of them because of the oncoming of the licensing period?

Sir J. Simon: My information is that it is not likely that the change would in crease the collection of the duty. The other consideration that I mentioned must also be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — INVESTMENT COMPANIES (TAXATION).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual revenue he hopes to obtain from Clauses 13, 14, and 15 of the Finance Bill, respectively;

and what sums he hopes to obtain from the retrospective provisions of each of these Clauses respectively?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend will understand that the provisions to which he refers are mainly protective of the existing yield of taxation and that the Surtax involved includes not only the tax at stake in existing cases but also the tax at stake if the law is not amended so as to prevent the extended use of devices for avoidance. So far as existing cases are concerned, I am advised that the amount of tax involved exceeds £1,000,000 annually; but as their provisions interact, I am unable to divide this figure between the respective Clauses. As regards Clause 13, it is estimated that the retrospective application of the Clause for the years 1936-37 and 1937-38 involves a sum of over £500,000 for the two years together.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that one of the directors of the Bank for International Settlements is a member of the German Government, he will consider the introduction of legislation by which the Bank of England's representative on the board must be either a Government nominee or some other person whose duty it would be to report to His Majesty's Government on all matters affecting British interests?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. I do not think that this would be a proper course to adopt.

Mr. Strauss: May I then ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will invite the Governor of the Bank of England in his own interest, in the public interest, to deny or admit the allegations made in usually well-informed circles that he supported the transfer of Czech money to Germany on the executive of the B.I.S., and that he opposed the views of the French directors who strenuously opposed this transfer?

Sir J. Simon: It appears to me to be quite a different question. As to the suggestion now made, I have not myself seen it and I do not think that I am entitled to interfere with the action of the directors of this Swiss Bank.

Mr. Strauss: Is it not very important to know whether the representative coming from this country did or did not support the transfer of this money to Germany and does not the action of this Government in relation to the B.I.S. and its future representatives on the B.I.S. largely depend upon what happened on this occasion?

Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman is evidently in some confusion of thought. He spoke of the action of this country in future in regard to its representatives on the B.I.S.; this country has no representatives on the B.I.S.

Mr. Benn: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to find out what action Mr. Montagu Norman took?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. May I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to rise to answer when you rose?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman sat down again.

Mr. Benn: May I ask your guidance? Was the question which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer an orderly question?

Mr. Speaker: It was perfectly orderly, but I understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no responsibility in the matter.

An Hon. Member: How do we know?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the composition of the board of the Bank for International Settlements, as provided by the protocol establishing the Bank?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to Article 28 of the Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements, as set forth in the International Convention of 10th January, 1930 (Command Paper 3484, page 120).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Would it not be in the public interest if Mr. Montagu Norman were to keep his right hand informed of what his left hand is doing?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are there not grave objections to private bankers having the power to make major decisions on matters

of public policy; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some amendment ought not to be made to the statutes of the Bank?

Sir J. Simon: I quite agree that that is an important question, but I do not think it is one with which I can deal in a supplementary answer.

Mr. Mander: Is it not laid down in the statutes of the Bank that none of the directors can be political personages; and is not the German member therefore disqualified from being a director of the Bank?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got the terms of the Article correctly.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of continued British participation in the Bank for International Settlements is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to Question No. 89 of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) on 8th June.

Mr. Boothby: In considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a lot of people think that, under existing conditions, this bank might be put into cold storage?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICINE STAMP DUTIES.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before deciding to propose the repeal of the medicine stamp duties he took any medical advice as to the effect on the public health?

Sir J. Simon: Before deciding to propose the repeal of the medicine stamp duties, I had the advantage of having before me the evidence given by the British Medical Association to the Select Committee of which my hon. Friend was a member. I would further refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on the 23rd May.

Mr. Macquisten: Would it not be possible to ascertain from these medical


gentlemen whether far too much medicine is not being taken by people in this country; and would it not be better if taxation were placed, not only on patent medicines, but on all medicines, and taken off good Scotch whisky?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to prevent the proposed abolition of Medicine Stamp Duties leaving it open for drugs to be indiscriminately distributed by people with no knowledge of the contents and character of the goods they are handling, or even to be sold in slot machines?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on 8th June to a question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Garro Jones) with regard to the control of the sale of drugs by persons other than qualified chemists.

Mr. Davidson: As that answer did not refer to any future proposal, may I ask whether any steps are now being taken to prevent the postal service of this country from being used by outside sellers to break regulations which we impose on sellers in this country?

Sir William Davison: Is not legislation desirable to provide that the prescription of what the medicine contains is clearly stated on the bottle, so that the public may know what they are taking?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to allay the grave apprehension among pharmacists at the proposed repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duties as depriving them of an ancient right to be the only retailers of their own preparations unstamped, with a due sense of responsibility?

Sir J. Simon: I do not consider that the repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duties need have the effect which my hon. Friend fears. It will be open to pharmacists who are at present the only retailers of their own preparations un stamped to continue this practice if they desire to restrict the channels of sale in this way; but repeal of the duties will remove the anomaly by which at present the same preparation may be sold unstamped by chemists but must be stamped when sold by traders who are not chemists.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Who is scoring by the reduction of the tax?

Sir W. Davison: Is it not desirable, in order to safeguard the public, that these patent medicines should be sold by chemists who know the ingredients and who would not sell them if they were actually detrimental?

Sir J. Simon: In some cases the chemist knows the ingredients, and in some cases he does not.

Mr. Macquisten: Why should traders who are not chemists be allowed to sell medicines? It is a monstrous proposal.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Did the shares of Beecham's Pills go up when the duty was repealed?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA STABILISATION FUND.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason for the serious fall in the exchange value of the Chinese dollar; and why the Stabilisation Fund has ceased to operate?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement issued in Hong Kong on 8th June, a copy of which I am causing to be circulated in the Official Report.

Mr. Bellenger: Was not the purpose of the Chinese Currency Stabilisation Fund, which was set up by legislation recently passed by this House, to keep the Chinese dollar on a stable basis; and, as the Chinese dollar has depreciated considerably since then, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fund has ceased to serve a useful purpose?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think it has ceased to serve a useful purpose. If the hon. Member will look at the statement which I am circulating, he will see the statement that was made.

Mr. Bellenger: Why has the fund ceased to operate? As British funds are involved, will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the question which I have put on the Paper, as to why the fund has ceased to operate?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member will, I am sure, appreciate that there could hardly be a better source of information on that point than the statement issued


from Hong Kong, and it is to that statement that I am asking him to give his attention.

Following is the statement::

As is generally known, during the past Weeks there has been no pressure on the China Stabilisation Fund, and confidence in the national currency remains unshaken. The Control, however, temporarily withdrew its support; on Wednesday in order to allow the exchange value of the dollar to be adjusted to a better economic level, and thereby bring the balance of trade into equilibrium. As will be remembered, a similar step was taken during Jane, 1938,: and when the level of 8d. was found it was successfully maintained for 12 months.

It is confidently believed that the new level has now been found, and can be strongly held. Many goods previously imported are how being made at home. The favourable harvest foreshadowed by all reports will also contribute towards reduced imports. Arrangements have been completed so that Government requirements of foreign exchange for munitions and other supplies have been taken care of, and will not come on to the exchange market.

Finally, as the Stabilisation Fund has been strengthened and further efforts to broaden the basis of. this fund have been successful, the ability of the authorities to maintain the exchange will not be questioned. It is further emphasised that in spite of the present adjustment in the exchange level the national currency will continue to retain the confidence of. the people because, its free convertibility is at all times assured.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (LOAN).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the negotiations now being conducted for a loan to Spain are being organised by an international undertaking operating from Brussels having British directors on its board, and a London office; and whether the consent of His Majesty's Government is necessary before British funds can be utilised in this way?,

Sir J. Simon: I am not in possession of any information which would confirm the facts, as stated in the first part of the question, but I shall be glad to consider any detailed statement which the hon Member may care to send to me. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr, Bellenger: Is not the right hon, Gentleman aware that statements are being made in certain City circles that this international loan is being organised

by a company in Brussels, on the board of which there are British directors?

Sir J. Simon: I was not aware of that Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer given to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. R. Strauss) on 18th May, where he will see that no British financial institution is associated with it.

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not stand in the way of a resumption of normal friendly relations, political, economic and trade, with Spain?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL BILLS.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, and why, His Majesty's Government has approved the restriction of the circulation of municipal bills?

Sir J. Simon: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the recent decision of the Bank of England to accept for discount only the bills of those local authorities to whom Parliament has granted specific statutory authority to borrow by such means, and to the decisions of the London Clearing Banks and the Scottish Banks to accept only bills eligible for re-discount at the Bank of England as security for money market loans. This measure of market regulation, which allows the circulation of bills issued under specific Parliamentary authority, has my sympathy and approval. The circulation of a large and unlimited volume of municipal bills would be open to grave objection both on general grounds and particularly because in any time of crisis the renewal of the bills might be impossible.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEAP MONEY POLICY.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an assurance that the policy of cheap money is still to be followed by His Majesty's Government; in particular, that he will take no steps to curb the increase in the number of Treasury bills necessitated by the present expenditure by premature funding operations; and that steps will be taken to ensure that the bank rate shall conform to that policy?

Sir J. Simon: I have frequently stated the Government's general policy. While action in the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's question must depend largely on the course of events, I can assure him that I can see nothing in present conditions to suggest the need for any change in regard to the cheap money policy.

Mr. Boothby: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the annual report of the Bank for International Settlements, in which the advantages of cheap money are questioned, the issue of Treasury bills is condemned and an alteration of the bank rate is recommended? Are we to take it that these views of the Bank for International Settlements are not the views of His Majesty's Government?

Sir J. Simon: I thank my hon. Friend for calling my attention to the matter. I am afraid I have not really studied it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT, TIENTSIN (SITUATION).

Mr. Noel-Baker: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the situation in Tientsin?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): On 9thApril Dr. S. G. Cheng, manager of the Federal Reserve Bank and newly appointed Superintendent of Customs, was assassinated in the British Concession. This was the first case of violence which had occurred in the Concession since the outbreak of hostilities. The assassin, a Chinese, escaped. The municipal authorities invited Japanese co-operation and carried out a number of raids in the Concession, as a result of which several arrests were made. The Japanese authorities alleged that four of these were members of a terrorist gang connected with the above murder and with the death of three Japanese soldiers. These men were handed over to them for questioning and made confessions implicating them selves, which, however, they later retracted when returned to the custody of the British municipal authorities. 
A warning proclamation was issued on 7th June that any breach of neutrality in the future would be dealt with by

either handing the culprit over to the de facto authorities for trial or by expulsion from the Concession. The four men in question, however, were arrested before the issue of that proclamation. In the absence of evidence connecting them with the crime other than their own confession, made while in the custody of the Japanese and, as they allege, under torture, His Majesty's Government have not felt justified in giving instructions for them to be handed over to the local district court. This attitude is in accordance with the practice followed for the past 22 months. His Majesty's Consul-General accordingly informed his Japanese colleague on 7th June that the four men would be held by him pending the production of further evidence, failing which they would be eventually expelled from the Concession; two other men found in possession of bombs would be handed over, and in future offenders would be dealt with as in the proclamation referred to above. The Japanese authorities have indicated that they consider this reply to be unsatisfactory, and certain measures have already been taken to effect the removal of Japanese business houses and of employès of the de facto Chinese authorities from the Concession, and to isolate it. The situation is serious, but negotiations are still proceeding and it is hoped that a settlement can be reached.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the Government explain to the Japanese that their present persistent action against the International Concession is one which must lead to the gravest results if it is continued?

Mr. Butler: I think the Japanese authorities are aware of the attitude of His Majesty's Government, as described in the answer I have just given.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Has it not been the custom in the past, and would it not be possible in future, to set up courts, and send these four men to one of the courts, within the British concession, and have them tried there, if necessary, with all the evidence?

Mr. Butler: There are particular circumstances in this case, and I can assure my hon. Friend that any possibility will be considered.

Mr. Bellenger: While the whole House will welcome a satisfactory settlement, will


the right hon. Gentleman make plain that His Majesty's Government will not tolerate what the Japanese have stated they will do, namely, blockade the British Con cession at Tientsin?

Mr. Butler: I had better refer the hon. Member to the last sentence of my answer, which said:
The situation is serious, but negotiations are still proceeding and it is hoped that a settlement can be reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (JEWISH REFUGEES).

Mr. T. Williams: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the plight of about 900 German Jewish refugees on board the "St. Louis;" whether he is aware that when they sailed for Cuba four weeks ago these refugees were furnished with visas, but on reaching Cuba were refused per mission to land; that the ship has now returned to European waters, and that according to the latest report about 200 of the refugees have been allowed to land in Holland temporarily; and whether he will take steps to afford asylum to at least some of those remaining on board?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): It is of the first importance that arrangements for the emigration of Jewish refugees from Germany shall proceed in accordance with an orderly programme and that no encouragement shall be given to any idea that if refugees leave Germany before arrangements have been made for their admission to some other country, special facilities will be granted for their reception. In this case, however, from inquiries which have been made, it appears that there are exceptional circumstances which would justify the admission to this country of a proportion of these refugees pending arrangements for their ultimate emigration, and arrangements are being made accordingly. It is understood that the Governments of Belgium and Holland are also willing to take their share in providing temporary asylum for other members of the party. It is, however, essential to emphasise the point that the special arrangements made in this case cannot be regarded as a precedent for the reception in future of refugees who may leave Germany before definite arrange-

ments have been made for their admission elsewhere.

Mr. Williams: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply and His Majesty's Government expression of sympathy, in view of the fact that these persons were furnished with visas before they left Germany on their way to Cuba, will the hon. Member ask his right hon. Friend to be generous in this matter?

Mr. Peake: That is the special circumstance which would justify us in making an exception in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Thorne:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether foreign hides imported are required to be registered on entering this country; if he is aware that a man working at Messrs. Waring, Warrington, died after contracting anthrax from skins that he had been handling which were known as water-buffalo but their source could not be given; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?

Mr. Thorne: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On Wednesday last I put down this question to be answered by the President of the Board of Trade because I thought that it affected his Department. I find that it has been relegated to the Home Secretary, and there is no possibility of it being answered in the House to-day. I am not complaining about that, but I think that when a question is relegated from one Department to another it ought to be put down for answer on the day when there is a possibility of it being answered by the Minister concerned?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry for the hon. Member. It is sometimes very difficult, when a question is transferred, to make proper arrangements for it to be transferred to a day upon which the Minister concerned will have precedence at Question Time.

Mr. Thorne: If I had known that the question was to be relegated to the Home Secretary, I should have put it down for to-morrow, because that is his day for answering questions.

An Hon. Member: No, Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member puts down his question for Thursday, it will be answered.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not the custom, when a Minister desires to transfer a question, that he notifies the hon. Member concerned, so that, if he wishes, he can transfer the question himself?

Mr. Thorne: I would remind my hon. Friend that I did get a notification.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-night in the event of the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule for the Civil Defence Bill, with which we hope to make good progress to-day. We hope to obtain the Government of India Act, 1935 (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament (Amendment) Order) which was debated last week, and the remaining stages of the Public Trustee (General Deposit Fund) Bill, which has already been considered by a Select Committee of this House.

Mr. Greenwood: Although the last two Orders will not raise a great deal of controversy, may I ask that the House shall not continue, in view of the progress

made yesterday, to sit as late as last night?

The Prime Minister: It is hoped that it will not be necessary to sit late.

Mr. Garro Jones: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to say, with reference to the Motion in my name on the Order Paper—[Interrogation of Ministers]—whether he will give facilities for a discussion of that Motion?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot offer any hope of that.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the Prime Minister give the assurance that he will have inquiry made into the circumstances of the suggestion put forward in the Motion, and permit me to renew my question to him at a later date? May I have an answer to that request?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I should have to study the Motion of the hon. Member before I gave an answer.

Sir W. Davison: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are a great many in accurate statements in it?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 122

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J, R. J.
Salt, E. W.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Magnay, T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Hambro, A. V.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Sandys, E. D.


Hannah, I. C.
Making, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Harbord, Sir A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Markham, S. F.
Smithers, Sir W.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Snadden, W. McN.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Medlicott, F.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hepworth, J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spens. W. P.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Herbert, Lt.Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Higgs, W. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Storey, S.


Holdsworth, H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ,s.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hopkinson, A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N, J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hunloke, H. P.
Owen, Major G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Hunter, T.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Touche, G. C.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Patrick, C. M.
Train, Sir J.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Peaks, O.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


James, Wing-commander A. W. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Jennings, R.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R, L.


Joel, D. J. B.
Petherick, M.
Turton, R. H.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Pilkington, R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan


Keeling, E. H.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Ward, Lieut.Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Radford, E. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Kimball, L.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wells, Sir Sydney


Lees-Jones, J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Levy, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lewis, O.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Liddall, W. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lipson, D. L.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Little, J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lloyd, G. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. D. S.
Rowlands, G.
Wragg, H.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A, C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel sir E. A.
York, C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


McKie, J. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES AYES.—


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Salmon, Sir I.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kirby, B. V.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Frankel, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Adamson, W. M.
Gallacher, W.
Lathan, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gardner, B. W.
Lawson, J. J.


Banfield, J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Leach, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lee, F.


Barr. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leslie, J. R.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Logan, D. G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lunn, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Benson, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.


Burke, W. A.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
McGhee, H. G.


Cape, T.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maclean, N.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, A.
Marshall, F.


Clynes, Rt, Hon. J. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Maxton, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cove, W. G.
Hicks, E. G.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Muff, G.


Daggar, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jagger, J.
Paling, W.


Davies, Ft. J. (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr).
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A.


Day, H.
John, W.
Pearson, A.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ede, J. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 132.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

South Shields Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Adoption of Children (Regulation) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords.] without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the modification of the law relating to the administration of justice in Scotland in the event of the outbreak or imminence of war and for purposes connected therewith." [Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the making of regulations with respect to the installation of supplies of gas and gas-fired appliances to and in premises in the county of London and matters incidental to such installation; and for other purposes." [London Gas Under takings (Regulations) Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the West Surrey Water Company to construct additional water works; to enlarge the capital and borrowing powers of the Company; to make better provision with respect to the laying and maintenance of pipes for the supply of water within the limits of supply of the Company; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes." [West Surrey Water Bill [Lords.]

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords]

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Three Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Solicitors Bill [Lords'] and request the Commons' to appoint an equal number of their members to be joined with the said Lords; and they propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room C on Wednesday the 21st instant at Eleven o 'CIock.

LONDON GAS UNDERTAKINGS (REGULATIONS) BILL [Lords]

WEST SURREY WATER BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (REGU LATION) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to-Standing Committee B (in respect of the Riding Establishments (Registration and Inspection) Bill): Lord Apsley, Mr. Davidson, Sir Ralph Glyn, Captain Heilgers, Mr. Hills, Mr. Hopkin, Mr: Hunloke, Mr. McEntee, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, Mr: Peake, Mr. Wilfrid Roberts, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Tree, Lieut.-Commander Tufnell, and Mr. Charles Williams.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Patents and


Designs (Limits of Time) Bill [Lords]): The Attorney-General, Mr. Bellenger, Sir George Broadbridge, Mr. Bromfield, Mr. Trevor Cox, Mr. Cross, Mr. Hollins, Mr. Magnay, Sir Adam Maitland, and the Solicitor-General.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (AIR MINISTRY (HES-TON AND KENLEY AERO DROMES EXTENSION) BILL SELECT COMMITTEE).

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Three Members to serve on the Select Committee on the Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aero-dromes Extension) Bill: Mr. Boyce, Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page Croft, and Mr. Garro Jones.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (Re-committed) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress,12th June].

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of local authorities to construct air-raid shelters in streets.)

Subject to the provisions of this Section, the local authority may provide a public air-raid shelter on any highway and may for that purpose construct works in or on the highway or land adjoining the highway and affix appliances to any building or wall adjoining the highway.

(2)In the case of a highway for the maintenance of which a highway authority other than the local authority is responsible, the local authority shall not exercise their powers under this Section without the consent of the highway authority.

(3)At least fourteen days before exercising any powers under this Section the local authority shall—
(a)serve upon the occupiers of any land or building adjoining the site of the proposed shelter a notice stating their intention to exercise the powers and specifying the general nature of the shelter;
(b)affix a similar notice in a prominent position upon the site of the proposed shelter; and
(c)cause a similar notice to be published in a newspaper circulating in the area of the authority.

(4)The local authority shall not, in the exercise of their powers under this Section, interfere with any mains, pipes, apparatus or works belonging to public utility undertakers unless they have given to those undertakers not less than fourteen days notice of their intention so to do and the local authority shall repay to the undertakers the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by them in or in connection with any removal, diversion or alteration of the mains, pipes, apparatus or works which may be reasonably necessary in consequence of the construction of the shelter; and if the local authority cause any damage to any such mains, pipes, apparatus. or works they shall repay to the undertakers the amount of the expenses reasonably incurred by them in making good the damage.

(5)The local authority shall pay to any persons having an estate or interest in any land or building adjoining the highway on which a shelter is constructed under this Section such compensation, if any, as may be just in respect of any depreciation of their property caused by the construction of the shelter.—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time." 
The Committee will remember that during the previous stage, in Committee, there stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) and certain other hon. Members, a Clause which was accepted by the Government in principle on the understanding that the wording would be examined before Report and that a Clause in a modified form would be put down for consideration at the present stage. The Clause which I now move corrects what we thought to be certain defects in the original draft. For example, the original draft Clause was limited to highways of 20 feet or less, and it was felt that the criterion for determining the class of highway that could most appropriately be used in the manner contemplated by the Clause should not be width or lack of width but rather traffic value. Therefore, the limit of width has been omitted. Secondly, the Clause provided for seven days' notice to every owner, lessee or occupier. That touches the point that we discussed in Committee at considerable length yesterday on another Clause. Such a provision might have covered all sorts of people who could not readily be traced and who might turn up at a later stage and claim that because they had not been notified everything done must be undone. In view of the discussion yesterday I am sure the Committee will agree that the Clause in its new form is an improvement in that respect. 
The scheme of the new Clause is as follows: First, there is no limitation on the width of the street that may be used; that matter is left to the discretion of the local authority. Secondly, if the shelter authority is not the same as the high way authority, the shelter authority can not exercise their powers without the con sent of the highway authority. Thirdly, 14 days before exercising any powers under the Clause the local authority must serve a notice, stating their intentions, on the occupiers of land and buildings ad joining the site, and must affix a notice on the site and insert a similar notice in a newspaper circulating in the district. The Clause also provides that the local authority shall not interfere with mains, pipes, and so on of public utility under takings unless they have given notice,


that they must repay the reasonable expenses of the removal of the pipes, and that they must also repay to the under takers the amount of the expenses reason ably incurred by them in making good any damage. Finally, the local authority must pay to any persons having an estate or interest in any land or building ad joining the highway such compensation as may be just and reasonable in respect of any depreciation of property caused by the construction of the shelter.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: This clause is in principle a necessary Clause, and, as the Minister has said, the principle of it was, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), I believe on behalf of the Corporation of Liverpool. There are, however, one or two points which I wish to raise and which perhaps apply particularly to London and may conceivably apply in exceptional cases to county districts outside London. First of all there is a general point which I think applies to everyone. My recollection is that the law as to building lines and their maintenance is largely determined by the actual buildings which exist at any moment on a street, and that if a building is permitted to or does in fact encroach beyond the general line of buildings, thereby it might be argued legally that a new building line is established and that private owners of property or those wishing to develop it may be considered entitled to advance the building line. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division and the Liverpool Corporation would not wish that to be an incidental result of this new Clause. What they want is the right to put a structure for A.R.P. purposes on the highway, but not thereby to interfere with amenities or development or to affect the rights of owners of property. I think that is a point which ought to be covered in some part of the Bill, unless the Lord Privy Seal can give us an assurance that it has already been met. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will encourage local authorities, if they are making an encroachment on the highway which, but for the emergency, would probably be considered undesirable, to make every endeavour to avoid interfering either with reasonable amenities, or with the flow of

traffic. If an administrative eye could be kept on that point from Whitehall, either by advice to local authorities or in some other way, so that the consideration of amenities will be taken into account, I think it would be in accordance with the wish of the Committee.
Apart from these general considerations, the only point which I wish to raise applies particularly to London, though it may conceivably affect some county districts outside London. The Clause provides that where the shelter authority is not the highway authority, it shall consult the highway authority before the projection is decided upon. In the case of London, the shelter authority is the metropolitan borough council, and the highway authority is the metropolitan borough council, but the building regulations authority is the London County Council. I am sure the Council would not wish to be "sticky" about this matter, but, in view of their great responsibilities in connection with the administration of the London Building Acts, perhaps there should be some arrangement for consultation. If that can be done administratively all right, but if it should necessitate an Amendment in the Bill, that is another matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or the Minister of Health, whose Department is particularly concerned with building regulations, can give us some assurances on those points which, I think, are not unreasonable. As to the general purpose of the Clause, I think it very reasonable and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) on his success in persuading the Lord Privy Seal to present it.

4.18 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: In regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I confess that it had already been brought to my notice, but that I have not been able to go into it fully. I can only say that, before the Bill takes final shape, I shall see to it that his point in. regard to the building line is thoroughly examined. His next point concerns the nature of the interference with the highway involved in the administration of the Clause. He expressed the hope that everything possible would be done to ensure that works were not carried out which offended unreasonably against the amenities of the neighbourhood. I think he can be assured that, as far as it is possible to do so consistently with carrying out the purposes


of the Clause, this will be done by administrative arrangement. In all these cases the local authority will expect to receive grant for these works. They will, there fore, have to come to the Department, and I can promise, on behalf of the Department, to keep a vigilant eye on this aspect of the matter. As regards the special position in London, as I have indicated these schemes will have to come to the Department and it should be easy, as a matter of administrative arrangement, to ensure that the London County Council is consulted in all proper cases. I have had a word with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and I am glad to be able to give that assurance on the matter.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: It may be that the last two points can be met by means of inspection and control and by the common sense of the local authorities, but on the question of the alteration of the building line, in connection with which a precedent is being set, would it not be more effective if the right hon. Gentleman saw to it that, in another place, words were inserted to deal with that point?

Sir J. Anderson: I did not mean to suggest that I proposed to deal with that point by administrative act. If I think that there is any danger as regards that matter, it will be dealt with in another place.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Logan: Those of us who represent Liverpool are very pleased at the acceptance by the right hon. Gentleman of this proposal, and in view of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) may I say that our idea is not that of interfering in any way with amenities. If arrangements can be made which will improve matters from that point of view and enable these facilities to be given we shall be very grateful, as long as the principle is accepted. There is one point on which an Amendment will be moved later by my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby), but with that exception, we are satisfied with the Clause.

Mr. McEntee: Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause provides that in the case of a highway, for the maintenance of which a highway authority other than the local authority is responsible, the local authority shall not exercise their

powers without the consent of the highway authority. If the highway authority does not give that consent, is there any appeal against their decision? Again, Sub-section (5) provides for the payment of "such compensation as may be just." Who is to determine what is just, and is there any authority to which an appeal can be made in that case also?

Sir J. Anderson: In regard to the first point, if the highway authority objects that is conclusive, subject to any powers of persuasion that may be exercised. That is the scheme of the Clause. As regards compensation, the Bill provides for that in the compensation Clause, and it will be determined by an official arbitrator.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Kirby: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 14, after "upon," to insert "or as near as possible to." 
May I, as a representative of Liverpool join with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) in expressing our pleasure at the acceptance of the Clause? We are very well satisfied with its terms except on the one point with which this Amendment deals. The Clause requires a local authority to affix, 14 days before exercising these powers, a notice upon the site of the proposed shelter. There may be difficulties in doing so, in certain cases and in certain classes of streets and in order to avoid difficulties we ask that the rather strict wording of the Clause should be modified by the introduction of these conditional words, which are self-explanatory.

Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 21, after "do," to insert:
nor in any case in which those undertakers intimate in writing to the local authority within fourteen days after the receipt of such notice their intention themselves to carry out any reasonably necessary removal, diversion or alteration of their mains, pipes, apparatus or works and proceed forthwith to complete such works with reasonable despatch.


The object of the Amendment is to give express powers to public utility undertakers to carry out such alterations to mains, pipes and other works as may be rendered necessary by the erection, by a local authority, of a public air-raid shelter on the highway. It may be argued that this power is implicit in the new Clause, but in order to prevent misunderstanding the power ought to be made explicit. The principle of the Amendment has already been agreed to in respect of the construction by local authorities of air-raid shelters on land other than high roads. It is obviously desirable that the work of altering mains and cables, which is of a technical nature, should be done by those who are experienced in it. There are many precedents for such a provision in private Acts.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: At the request of the Metropolitan Water Board I support the Amendment. The board desire me to point out that in the case of water mains particularly, it is undesirable that they should be removed by people other than the board's own staff.

Sir J. Anderson: This Amendment has a familiar ring, and I think I can, without further ado, advise the Committee to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In line 23, after "any," insert "such."

Leave out from "alteration," to "and," in line 25.—[Mr. Ross Taylor.]

4.28 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 31, at the end, to add:
(6) The powers of this Section shall not be so exercised as to obstruct or render less convenient the access to, or exit from any premises belonging to any public utility under takers and used for the purposes of their undertaking.
This Amendment is moved on behalf of docks, railways and canals under takings who fear that the comprehensive powers in the Clause might be so exercised as to interfere to access to or exit from their premises. They are given no power to prohibit or to impose conditions on the construction of air-raid shelters.

The associations concerned appreciate the desirability of adequate protection being afforded to the general public against air raids, but they regard it as equally important that nothing should be done to interrupt or interfere with transport facilities. Their functions in that respect would be seriously interfered with if local authorities were to place public air-raid shelters in certain streets, for example, in small streets affording access to docks. This Amendment is based on a provision in the Fire Brigades Act. The Ministry of Transport have "vetted" the Amendment and, I am empowered to say, have approved of it. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he cannot accept the Amendment, will at any rate relieve the minds of these public undertakers, as to their position in this matter.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I suggest that these words are far too wide. I appreciate the point about obstruction, but "render less convenient" is a very wide term, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept those words.

4.30 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I was going to say that, while I fully appreciate the force of the argument put forward on behalf of the public utility undertakers, first, those undertakers are not the only people who may be discharging important functions that might conceivably be prejudiced by the provisions of the Clause. Secondly, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) suggests, the pro vision in this suggested Sub-section is very wide indeed. I think the Committee will agree that this matter is one which could safely be left to reasonable consideration, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that this is a matter which is recognised as one to which close attention should be paid in the administration of the Clause.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered.

NEW CLAUSE —(Execution of works by owner of dwelling house.)

(1)The owner of any dwelling-house may execute any works for the purpose of providing air-raid shelter in the dwelling-house or in any land belonging to or occupied with the dwelling-house, notwithstanding any limitation on his interest in the dwelling-house or the said land or any agreement or restrictive covenant to the contrary.

(2)In this section the expression "owner," in relation to any dwelling-house, means the person in whom the fee simple is vested, and includes also a lessee of the dwelling-house under a lease the unexpired term of which exceeds three years.

(3)This section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the Act of 1937.— [Sir ]. Anderson.']

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.33 P.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause was put down to take the place of the new Clause moved in Committee by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) which was carried. It was later withdrawn in order that it might be put down afresh at this stage in a somewhat amended form. The object of the Clause is to allow the owner of a dwelling-house to provide air-raid shelter on his premises, notwithstanding any restrictive covenant to the contrary, and the owner is defined in wide terms to include a lessee under a lease the unexpired term of which exceeds three years. We have thought it desirable in this case to make the Clause retrospective.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to express my gratification to the right hon. Gentleman for arranging for the resurrection of this Clause in a more watertight form. I am sure that it covers all the points that we want covered and that it will be of assistance in certain difficult cases in securing that adequate protection is in fact given.

4.36 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: Apparently under this Clause an owner can put an air raid shelter on any part of the land. I do not know what the owner of the land may think if it is put in a certain position that he thinks is likely to depreciate the value of the land. I do not say that it will happen, but I can conceive that the question may arise where the owner might

object to the place where the shelter is to be erected and might wish it to be put in what he considered a more suitable place.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to. Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of air-raid shelter in certain buildings.)

(1)The owner of any building or block of buildings to which this section applies may prepare a scheme for providing air-raid shelter in or near the building or block for the persons living and working in the building or block.

(2)In this section the expression "building or block of buildings to which this section applies," means a building or block of buildings which is situated in an area specified in an order made by the Minister under Part III of this Act, and is let out in separate parts:

Provided that so much of any building or block as consists of, or is comprised in, any factory premises or commercial building shall be disregarded.

(3) Any such scheme shall—
(a) state the situation and the general nature of the shelter to be provided under the scheme and the number of persons which the shelter is to be constructed to accommodate;
(b) state the estimated cost of the pro-vision of the shelter;
(c) contain a statement of the effect of the subsequent provisions of this section as to increases of rent;
and may contain such other information as appears to the owner to be relevant in connection with the scheme.

(4)The owner shall serve a copy of any such scheme on the occupier of every separate part of the building or block not occupied by the owner thereof.

(5)If the occupiers of more than one-half in number of the separate parts of the building or block (other than parts thereof which are in the occupation of the owner of the building or block) assent to the scheme then, on completion by the owner of the shelter specified by the scheme in accordance with the provisions thereof, the rent payable under every lease derived from the estate or interest of the owner (being a lease in existence at the date of the completion of the shelter) shall, unless it is otherwise agreed in connection with, or after the provision of the shelter, be increased to the extent and for the period specified in the subsequent provisions of this section.

Provided that where a part of a building or block is occupied under a lease of which the unexpired term is less than six months that person shall be deemed for the purposes of this Sub-section to be the occupier of that part who would be the occupier thereof if every such lease thereof had been surrendered.

(6) The said increase shall be calculated as follows: —



(a)there shall first be taken the expenses of the owner in providing the shelter or the amounts specified in the scheme as the estimate of those expenses, whichever is the less;
(b)there shall then be ascertained the proportion which the annual value of the part of the building or block to which the lease in question relates at the date of the completion of the works bears to the annual value of the whole building or block at that date;
(c)the proportion so arrived at shall be applied to the sum ascertained under paragraph (a) of this Sub-section; and
(d)the increase in rent shall be at the annual rate of one-tenth of the sum arrived at under paragraph(c)

(7) The rent on which the said increase operates is all rent payable under the lease in question in respect of any rent period beginning after the date of the completion of the shelter:

Provided that no increase shall operate for more than ten years.

(8)A surety for the payment of any rent which is increased under this section shall not be discharged by reason of the increase, but shall not be liable in respect of the increase.

(9)Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the owner of any building or block of buildings to enter upon any premises or land, or to do any work thereon, if he would not have been entitled to enter or to do that work apart from the provisions of this section.

(10) In this section—
(a) the expression "owner," in relation to a building or block of buildings to which this section applies has the same meaning as that expression has in relation to a commercial building; and
(b) the expression "separate part," means, in relation to a building or block of buildings, a part thereof which is in separate occupation, or, if unoccupied, is intended for separate occupation; and
(c) the expression "rent period," means, in relation to a lease, the quarter or other period in respect of which an instalment of rent becomes payable thereunder.—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.37 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time." 
The buildings chiefly contemplated are blocks of flats, and the Clause is designed to fill a gap in the general scheme of shelter provision under this Bill. Part III of the Bill provides for shelter for employés in industry and commercial buildings, and Part II of the Bill provides for public shelters to be provided by local authorities. When, some time ago, I met representatives of local authorities, after

the Bill had been introduced, the question was raised whether arrangements could not be made to facilitate the provision of shelter for the occupants of existing blocks of flats. That matter was given consideration mainly in regard to two types of buildings—first, the blocks of working-class flats which have been brought into existence under various Housing Acts by local authorities and similar buildings that have been erected by various trusts, such as the Guinness Trust, the Sutton Trust, and so on, and by certain commercial owners. That was the first class of buildings that we took into consideration from this point of view, and in that case the solution at which we arrived was one that did not require, in our view, any amendment of the law. We took the view that in the case of working-class flats, flats occupied predominantly by persons who would be considered entitled to the free provision of one of the standard types of Government shears, it would be proper that the local authority, under the Act of 1937, should be enabled to provide shelter of a communal character in connection with such flats and should be entitled to claim the grant at the full rate appropriate under the Act of 1937 for such provision. That decision, which was intimated to those concerned—it was an administrative decision—was, I think, very much welcomed, and it was recognised as making a very substantial contribution towards the solution of an important problem. 
But that decision left untouched the case of flats of a somewhat more expensive description, what you might call middle-class flats or luxury flats. In such cases it would not, according to the practice of the Department be proper that public funds should be saddled with the cost of providing shelter, and it is for that case that this Clause has been devised. The scheme of the Clause is this: The owner of the flats may prepare a scheme for providing shelter in or near the building, and he has to circulate the scheme to the occupiers, describing the general nature of the shelter to be provided and the estimated cost. If the occupiers of more than one half in number of the separate parts of the building assent to the scheme, then, when the scheme is carried out, the cost can be added by the owner to the rents, not merely of those who have agreed, but of


all the occupiers of different parts of the building, proportionately to what they are already paying. The increases in rent are to be based on the actual cost of the scheme or the amount of the circulated estimate, whichever is the less. The occupier with a lease with less than six months to run is not in that case given the vote, but it goes to the person who would be the occupier if the short lease had been surrendered. The owner is not enabled to construct works in any part of the building on which he would not have been entitled to carry out work apart from the Clause; that is to say, he cannot use for shelter purposes an occupied flat without the consent of the occupier. He must in that case find accommodation either in the garden or some other part of the building. The Clause is not entirely limited to residential flats. There might be cases where there were two shops on the ground floor of a residential building, shops in which less than the standard number of 50 people were employed, and in that case those shops might be enabled to participate in the shelter provided. The scheme of the Clause is not so much to confer compulsory powers on anyone, as to remove obstacles that might prevent shelter being provided where the owner and the majority of his tenants were perfectly willing that it should be provided, but where a minority of the tenants were holding out and in that way preventing the carrying-out of desirable work.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: This Clause presumably seeks to fill up one of the gaps that I mentioned yesterday in the discussion on the shelter provisions under Clause 7, and every one of us would wish that those gaps should be filled up, and that the middle-class population that lives in the higher rented flats should not be excluded from reasonable shelter provision. But this is really an utterly unsatisfactory Clause to that end, and my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and North Islington (Dr. Guest) have an Amendment down designed to make the Clause operative. First of all, the Clause does not operate at all unless the owner of the building puts forward a scheme, and, as I am reminded, he may not live there. It is highly probable in most cases that he does not live there, and indeed, as I am also reminded, it may be a

limited company. That is the first, the major, and the very great difficulty, and I think it is monstrous that this important and growing section of the population that lives in these higher rented flats and is often somewhat exploited in the process should be left in a position where there is no proper guarantee of shelter whatever. If the owner merely stands pat and nothing happens, they do not get their shelter, because under the Clause they cannot provide it for themselves, even if they wish to. The rights of the owner would prevent them from doing so. 
Secondly, 50 percent, of the tenants must consent to the scheme and, whilst it is in accordance with the formal statistical principles of democracy that there should not be less than 50 percent, assenting, it will be very rough on them if only 49 percent, consent, or any other proportion, if they are left out because there is an insufficient number of occupiers who consent to the provision. Supposing, for example that a considerable number of occupiers have made arrangements to leave the vulnerable area on the outbreak of an emergency or, though they have an interest in the provision of a shelter in that place, they do not wish to pay additional rent and they vote against the scheme being operated, that will be exceedingly rough on the remaining people who, for financial, business or patriotic reasons remain behind and will have no shelter provision what ever in the building. There are grave objections to this automatic 50 percent, requirement. I should have thought, if the scheme was to be operated and complete, there ought to be a clear obligation stated by Parliament on the owner of the building.
There is another subsidiary point which is not covered in the Clause. If the premises are let as furnished flats, the rent payable will have no regard to the value of the flat as flat, apart from the furniture, and the owner might in that case get an excessive return. I am exceedingly apprehensive that the Clause will be largely inoperative and that a substantial and growing portion of the middle-class population of the great cities, which are increasingly tending to occupy flats, will be left out. A point raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) in Committee dealt with the class of property which is the old


house formerly in single family occupation but now broken up into flats. I should like to know whether it is held that this Clause will apply to property of that kind. That, of course, is not the large conglomeration of flats but an individual house in three or four floors which has been broken up into tenements or flats. I raise the point because under Sub-section (2),
the expression ' building or block of buildings to which this section applies,' means a building or 'block of buildings which is situated in an area specified in an order made by the Minister under Part III of this Act, and is let out in separate parts
Presumably, therefore, it will be dealt with administratively and should be within the meaning of the Section, provided the Minister takes the view that it is a building or block of buildings to which the order should apply.

4.49 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to add a Clause of this kind. It is a very long Clause but in London this is becoming a very big living issue. London is rapidly becoming a city of flat dwellers. Victorian houses and villas—semi detached houses—are being rapidly swept away and these vast blocks of dwellings are being put up, in some cases housing thousands of people. One cannot help visualising that in case of war these blocks of flats will present a very real problem. If, by some tragedy, one of these big blocks in the centre or in the suburbs of London was hit, it would be nothing short of disaster. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—it is an old controversy—that the word "shall" ought to be put in and not "may." After all, most of these big blocks are owned by limited companies. It is be coming a very considerable business, large commercial undertakings developing these big blocks of flats. They provide an investment for the public. I do not think it is fair to put on the owner the responsibility of deciding whether he should expend the shareholders' money in providing shelters for the tenants. The right way is to say that it is a legal obligation on certain conditions. 
The responsibility might be divided between the tenants and the local authorities. I should have thought the local authority, which is responsible for pro-

viding shelter for the public, ought to be able to say to one of these big owners, "It is your duty to provide, if you like, with the consent of the tenants, the necessary shelter in some shape or form." These great modern buildings lend them selves to some form of cellar shelter or shelter in the square or gardens at the back. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought seriously to consider the suggestion contained in the Amendment. I am quite satisfied that on the whole the private landlords or companies that own these buildings will not take the initiative unless they have some form of legal obligation to do the work either at the request of the local authority or of the tenant.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I would also emphasise the necessity for this Clause in London. This question of providing shelter in blocks of flats is a very live issue, and structurally it is a very difficult one. The hon. Baronet, who is also a London Member, suggested that the local authority should have the option of ordering the owner to put up a scheme. I would much rather make it an obligation on the owner to put up a scheme whether the local authorities wish to do so or not. If the tenants turn it down, the owner is relieved of his obligation—it is a matter for them —but I think the owner should have the obligation of doing so. After all, if he is able to consider, in making up his mind whether to submit a scheme, the nearness of a public shelter, it may well be that he will be able to say to the tenants, "You can go down the street; the borough council will put up a shelter for you," and he may be able to evade what I consider should be an obligation to his tenants and overcrowd the shelter of the local authority. I hope that when the time comes, my right hon. Friend will favourably consider the Amendment.

4.55 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I am not rising in order to criticise the Clause but to ask whether the point I have raised has been met, because I cannot see that it has been, though I may be wrong. Curiously enough, the problem affects two districts so unrelated as Bloomsbury and the tenement area of Jarrow, for one of which I am a Member and of the other an inhabitant. The position is this. Where you have an old house converted into flats,


you very often have a piece of land which once was the garden of the house, but which in fact is no man's land. It really belongs to the original owner, but it is not let out by him. It is just a place for tin cans. There are four or five flats, and it may be that in three or four the income is over £250 and in the other, below it, and they get a steel shelter. What are they to do when they have got it? He only place where they can put it is in this derelict garden. Very often the property is so old that they are just waiting till the lease runs out and the owner will not move to erect any kind of underground shelter. All that is really needed is that the tenants, individually or collectively, should have the right to erect their steel shelters in the one piece of land to which they have any access at all. It is not interfering with anyone. What is worrying me is that the Clause says,
Nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorising the owner of any building or block of buildings to enter upon any premises or land, or to do any work thereon, if he would not have been entitled to enter or to do that work apart from the provisions of this Section.
What is really the point is for the tenants to have the right to put the shelters up there. 
The other point is that it must be decided by a majority. I submit that there is really no necessity to have a majority. If one person out of the whole number has a steel shelter, provided by the Government, presumably the Government intends that he should use it. This may seem a small point, but there are whole areas, particularly in the West Central district, where big houses have been divided into tenement flats. They are not blocks of flats at all, except under a wide usage of the word. I should like to ask the Minister whether he considers that the problem that I put before him is met in the Clause, and, if not, whether he can suggest any way by which it can be met.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: The Clause uses the un fortunate word "may." The owner of a building or block of buildings may make provision for shelter for the tenants. There are a number of different kinds of buildings and blocks of buildings which might come under the Clause. There is the type that has been referred to, the old house which has been turned into flats, there is the block of expensive and

extensive flats, many of which are around this and other areas in London, and there is the poorer, cheaper type of flats occupied in many parts of East London by very large numbers of people. The owner of any of these blocks may do certain things. What will be the consideration that will induce that owner to take the precaution of providing for his tenants the amount of shelter accommodation that is necessary? Obviously he will only do it if he can see that he will be able to recover from the tenants enough money to repay him and perhaps give a small profit over. That will largely depend on whether the owners of that property are themselves in a position to expend money in the first instance. If they are people who have considerable amounts of capital available they may say that they can afford to use the money now and recover the cost ultimately from the tenants. On the other hand, if the property is old and has been turned into flats, the owner may very easily be comparatively poor and quite unable to expend money upon a shelter. The property may perhaps be in an area where street accommodation is near. The Clause might very easily be made to read:
The owners of any building or block of buildings to which this Section applies may by themselves or in conjunction with the local authority prepare a scheme …
If you go further and take out the word "may" and insert "shall," then both the owner and the local authority could in conjunction recover from the tenants the amount of money expended. Where the owner is unable to find the capital the local authority might be given power to lend the money necessary. That would make sure that the people living in the property would be provided with the necessary shelter and it would make it obligatory on the local authority and the owner in conjunction to see that air-raid shelter was provided. Frankly I think the Clause as it is now will operate in some cases and not in others. We ought to see that accommodation is actually provided for all the people who need it. It has already been stated that many people will go away to what they consider to be safe places, leaving behind them perhaps tenants without shelter accommodation except where they are reasonably near a public shelter. It would be just as easy and far more satisfactory to make the Clause compulsory.

5.5 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I want to ask the Minister whether the Clause if passed will have the effect of operating in the case of the very large number of buildings which are converted houses, in the London area. I suppose a very large part of Bloomsbury, the whole of Bays-water, and the whole of South Kensington, Earl's Court and some of the outer parts like Hampstead, contain buildings which originally were inhabited by one family and are now cut up into a number of floors. Sometimes there may be accommodation for two groups of people or even half a dozen. Sometimes they are very cheap and sometimes very expensive. In this district immediately around the House of Commons there are towards Victoria some coverted houses in which the rents are extremely high. Will this Clause apply to them? That is an extremely difficult point. It is all very well saying that the landlord "may," but there is very good evidence that there must be some way of making "may" into "must." Unless some form of pres sure can be applied to the landlord by those using the premises a great many landlords will not take any steps at all. It may be said by the Minister that the landlord can at the present time provide any air-raid shelter he likes in respect of his own property. Will he do it? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentle man has seen a letter in this morning's "Daily Telegraph" dealing with this point. It is signed by "Five senior wardens" and they say that there are unfortunate exceptions to the rule that land lords are ready to provide shelters. They go on:
Certain landlords of blocks of flats have, despite repeated requests, refused to take any steps whatever to reinforce basements, to supply fire-fighting appliances, or otherwise endeavour to provide for the safety of their tenants and incidentally their own property. In adopting this regrettable attitude they are doubtless taking advantage of the fact that at present local authorities have not and apparently will not have legal powers to compel them to take adequate measures to safeguard life and property.
That is a very definite and precise statement and it is said by the authors that it applies to the safety of8,000 people in part of the Royal Borough of Kensington. I am not therefore waving the red flag. This comes from a very eminently respect able part of London. It does indicate that unless there is a possibility of a cer-

tain amount of pressure on the landlord there will be very great difficulty in getting some people to provide any accommodation at all. 
There is the very important point raised by my hon. Friend who has just spoken about the case of the landlord who has not got the money to provide shelter. There are a good many people in London who take a house with the object of living themselves on one floor rent free and dividing. the rest of the house into flats from which they draw rent, the total probably being just enough to pay their outgoings. How are people of that kind going to deal with the situation? As one goes on with this Bill its difficulties and complexities be come so great that I do not want to press the Minister too hard, but I do hope that he has got some suggestions. At any rate he has been fertile in suggestions, and at a later stage when my hon. Friend and myself come to put an Amendment for ward I hope it will be accepted because I do not think the thing will work unless it is. But, apart from that, how is the question of the provision of shelter in places in which the landlord is not in a financial position to do anything at all, to be met?

5.11 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Might I just raise one point? It does seem to me that this Clause is really trying to deal with two quite different problems. There is the problem of the big flat, like Dolphin House, which has been mentioned, with landlords who have plenty of money behind them, perfectly capable of shouldering this burden, but there is other property very extensive in the west of London and West Central which includes perhaps one, two or three houses converted, with a very large number of inhabitants living in single rooms. I live in such a place myself and in the square in which I live are buildings which contain an average number of families of 20, 30 or more. They are let for periods of six or nine months, or a year, and I am not clear whether that sort of premises is intended to be covered. If the Minister does intend to cover them I think some of the terms are hardly applicable. 
There are two other points I want to raise. One is in connection with sub-paragraph (9). This seems to me to put it out of the power of the owner to do


the work which he very likely may have to do if he wants to make an effective scheme. He may have a basement flat which is let off and the only possibility of doing any effective work as regards an air-raid shelter is to do something in the basement. There is no power of entry for any purpose of that kind in the existing lease. If he does not get a power of entry he will be absolutely powerless unless the tenant consents, and if the tenant does not consent he will be stopping the whole scheme. Secondly, there is the expression "owner" which is defined in the same terms as the owner of a commercial building. On page 69 of the Bill it is stated that "owner" means:
Where there is no lease of the whole of the premises or building the unexpired term of which is 10 years or more, the person in whom the fee simple of the premises or building is vested.
That leaves entirely out of account that very unpleasant type of man known as the receiver, who is unfortunately found in a great many of this sort of house and is in fact operating as the owner. He is in possession. The owner is bankrupt. The receiver is carrying on the business, very often representing an insurance company from whom money was borrowed in the first instance, and unless something is done to include the receiver in such cases within the expression "owner" I think there will be a great many cases where this will be perfectly useless because the bankrupt owner will be the only person compelled to do anything. You cannot compel a man who has nothing, to spend money on doing something. I suggest that that is a point which must be considered if the new Clause is to be made effective.

5.15 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: A great many points have been raised on this proposal, some of them of a general character and others concerning the details. Let me take one or two of the details first. It was intended that the new Clause should deal not only with large blocks of flats but also with converted houses of the type to which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Dr. Guest) and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) have referred. We had not particularly in mind the case of apartment houses let in furnished apartments, we were thinking of separate dwellings let unfurnished. The

case of the cheaper type normally occupied by working-class people, which the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) has in mind, are really outside the new Clause, as I have already explained. That observation also applies to the case brought forward by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). As I tried to make clear, the Government have been at pains to provide by administrative action some ready means by which shelter can be provided, on the initiative of the local authority, for per sons living in flats or converted houses of the class for which free shelters would be provided if they were living in circum stances suitable for the provision of such shelter. We are really thinking here of the middle class. 
It has been said by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) that the new Clause does not go nearly far enough, and that it is monstrous that we should be content with a Clause which in practice can have only a partial application. I suggest that this is one of the cases in which it may be better to deal with the matter in this way. We have to deal with a very difficult problem with which the Bill in its original form made no attempt to deal, and I should be the last person to contend that the new Clause covers the whole of the ground. I regret that it should be so. I would very much rather be putting for ward a thoroughgoing watertight proposal which I could say represented a complete and wholly satisfactory solution for a particular part or section of our shelter problem. I doubt whether it would have been practicable to proceed in this particular matter on the line of compulsion. We started with compulsion for the owner-occupier of a factory. It was a fairly simple problem. Then we proceeded with the case of the owners of commercial buildings, and we found ourselves confronted with a multiplicity of interests, involving great complexities, and involving difficult administrative problems and heavy burdens on local authorities and also on the central government. Then we came to the varied conditions of flats and converted dwellings. If we were to introduce compulsory powers and substitute "shall." for "may" we should be obliged to have a completely new administrative scheme. It may be no good, I suggest, and I have addressed myself to the problem


with every desire to go as far as it was feasible, to put an obligation on an owner to prepare a scheme and submit it to his tenants, and then if a certain proportion of his tenants accept the scheme give him the necessary power to apply the scheme compulsorily. That might not be effective. An owner who was unwilling to act could put up a scheme which would comply with the provisions of such a Clause, but which would have no chance whatever of being accepted by the tenants. If you were to proceed on compulsory lines, with much hope of making what you are seeking to achieve effective, you would have to provide for supervision by some authority. It would have to have the power to lay down conditions to which the scheme must conform, and there would have to be very drastic powers reserved to the authority to lay down the precise terms and conditions to which such schemes must conform under all the varying circumstances which would arise in actual practice. There would have to be elaborate provision for appeal. 
When, after consideration of the problem, we came to realise that all these difficulties stood in the way we had to ask ourselves this question: is it reason able to overburden the administration which under the Bill is already heavily burdened with tremendous tasks—that applies not only to the central Department but just as much to local authorities —or is it better, on the contrary, to proceed on the line that we shall never achieve the purpose of the Bill unless we can invoke on a very large scale the good will of the public in carrying out what the Bill contemplates? In all its aspects you must rely primarily on a realisation on the part of the public of what is needed and on their good will in carrying out the necessary arrangements. If that be the true line of approach, then our task in framing this new Clause was to do what we reasonably could to remove the artificial obstacles in the way. We thought we had done that when we had provided that if a majority of the tenants agreed to the landlord's proposal then the minority of unwilling tenants, possibly tenants who had no interest in the premises in time of war, should not stand in the way. The landlords we had in mind were those who had a direct interest in providing adequate shelter, landlords of the better-class luxury flats.
As and when shelter provision becomes more general—and I would remind the House that under the Bill all new blocks of flats will have to contain shelter—the owner of a block of flats or a composite building which does not contain shelter will find himself more and more at an economic disadvantage. We felt there fore that, while we should like to have gone very much further a proposal on the lines of the new Clause would be of real value, probably of increasing value as time went on, and that it was better to be content with such a provision for the time being as a supplement to the very elaborate and rather complex provisions dealing with the more urgent cases already in the Bill than to try and achieve what might very well prove, as an administrative problem, to be impracticable. Those are the reasons why in framing this new Clause we stopped short where we did. 
I quite recognise that there might be certain defects in the new Clause which, if the general line of approach is accepted, will have to be remedied. I do not think we shall be able to find a convenient remedy for the defect which the hon. and learned Member found in Sub-section (9). It is true that as the new Clause is drawn an owner cannot convert the basement part of a building into a shelter for all the occupants of the building unless it happens to be under his control or unless he can induce the tenant to place it at his disposal. There is, of course, always the possibility that a local authority might consider that such a basement was really suitable as a shelter and might appropriately be designated under Clause 2 for the purpose of a public shelter. The existence of that possibility might render the tenant of such a basement rather more amenable if a reasonable proposition was put to him, but I quite recognise that it may be represented as a defect in the Bill. It was suggested by the hon. and learned Member that the new Clause would be in all probability quite useless in a proportion of the cases in which the effective owner is a receiver. That may be so, but I suggest that there will be many cases in which the new Clause will be of use.

Sir S. Crippe:: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to having "receiver" added to the definition of "owner"?

Sir J. Anderson: I am prepared to see what can be done in that matter without


introducing complications. In conclusion, I can only submit to the House that we have done our best. What we have achieved certainly is not perfection, but I think the Clause will have value and that its value will be increased as time goes on and the provision of shelter becomes more and more general.

Mr. Markham: I should like my right hon. Friend to clear up one point on the question as to what is a large block of flats. As I understand his explanation, the Clause will not apply to blocks of flats of less than 10 or 20 flats in a single block, and it will not apply to a divided house that is let in separate flats.

Sir J. Anderson: I said that the Clause is so drawn that it will deal with a large block of flats and with a divided house, but I did say that we had not had in mind the particular case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) of a house let in separate furnished apartments.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 2, after "applies," to insert:
 "shall if so required by more than, one-half in number of the occupiers of the separate parts of the building or block and in any other case.
The effect of this Amendment would be to give the occupiers as well as the owner some initiative in the matter of providing shelter. As the Clause stands, if the owner does not move, the occupiers are left without shelter, although all of them may be willing to incur the necessary expense in which this Clause would involve them if a shelter were provided. Inasmuch as it would be the occupiers' lives that would be at stake if the building were damaged in the course of a hostile air attack, it would appear to me to be desirable that the occupiers should have some opportunity of expressing their opinion as to whether the owner should provide the necessary shelter. It is difficult to understand why the Minister has not intimated his willingness to accept the Amendment, because it has already received the support of one hon. Member behind him who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister, and, therefore, is

understood to be a person of some experience in these matters, and who represents the districts in which very large numbers of these middle-class flats have been erected. I imagine that he finds that a very considerable proportion of his electorate lives in such flats.
There is the case of what were formerly large country houses that one finds in such places as Streatham and other suburbs of London, where the owner is generally a person living many miles away, who has no direct interest in making the place secure for these purposes, but whose tenants may be exceedingly anxious that their lives should be protected in the event of air attack. Early this afternoon, I was approached in the Lobby by one of the signatories to the letter to the Press to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) has alluded. These five senior wardens appear to be gentlemen who have given a very great amount of their time, in one of the London suburbs, to the problem of finding out what effective shelter will be available to the dwellers in these large blocks of flats. They have found to their astonishment that the owners are not proposing to do anything; they say frankly that they do not think the Minister's Clause will induce the owners to do anything, and that the occupiers are expressing great perturbation about the position in which they find themselves. These five gentlemen wrote:
 "In the areas for which we are responsible, which are typical of many areas in London and other parts of the country, there are blocks of flats in which the number of residents is far in excess of the number of employés mentioned with regard to commercial buildings, but for whom apparently no protection can be required. The tenant is powerless in the matter, and generally cannot afford to move to other premises so long as his existing lease continues. We are unable to appreciate the reason for this distinction between commercial premises, which are mainly occupied in the day time only, and residential premises, which may be, and often are, occupied throughout the 24 hours, and consider that it is of equal importance that provision should be made for safeguarding the lives of persons who may be, by circumstances, compelled to live in large buildings, and who in many cases are aged and infirm. Our practical experience leads us to the conclusion that the Civil Defence Bill is seriously defective in the respect which we have mentioned, and we regard it as being of the utmost importance that this defect should be remedied while there is still time.
That is the opinion of five men who are giving their spare time to the preparation


of the civil population for adequate defence in the event of war. They are operating in an area where a great proportion of the population live in blocks of flats or houses that have been divided up. I ask the Minister whether it is not right that there should be this power given to the tenants so that they can compel the owner to do something. There is the case where the owner is a limited company. I understand that most of the big blocks of flats in London are owned by limited companies. There is also the case of houses similar to that in which I live, which is a large house divided into nine flats, in one of which the owner resides; he has to share with the rest of us any risks that may be run. But we all know that a limited company has not a body that can be kicked, or a soul that can be appropriately punished in the next world; and neither, as far as I can make out, has it any corporate entity that can be gravely endangered if its property is bombed by hostile aircraft. In those cases, it is necessary that the unfortunate tenants should have an opportunity of making their wishes known and making them effective. They would not impose any cost on the owner that he could not recover under the Clause. All that they could do, if the Amendment were accepted, would be to compel the owner to take the necessary steps to make reasonable provision for them. 
I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that there are limits to the doctrine which he has stated this afternoon, that we must proceed by general consent as far as we can. After all, if we proceeded on those principles, there would be no need to publish more than the Ten Commandments. If only everybody would observe the Ten Commandments, the greater part of the work of the House would be entirely unnecessary. It is due to the fact that people do not adopt that attitude towards the affairs of themselves and their neighbours that we have to bring in the compulsion of the civil law to rein force the moral precepts which, in general, most people are willing to accept until they have to apply them to their own particular difficulties. Every one who goes to church and listens to a sermon realises how well it fits everybody else, arid goes away thinking what an uncomfortable time somebody else must have had, when very likely, if the parson

knows the people at all, he has been thinking more of the person who distributes the sermon in that way than of the people to whom it has been distributed.
I ask the Minister to realise that in this matter these tenants are quite defenceless unless he is prepared to give them the power of initiative for which I am asking. The local authority has no power to compel the owner to make the provision and the right hon. Gentleman himself will not give these people shelters, and if he did, they would have no place on which to put the shelters. Their only chance of getting adequate protection is that the landlord should make the provision. If he declines, as the Clause is worded, these people will have no remedy. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that something very much more convincing than what he said just now will have to be said before he will be able to persuade these people that he is adequately looking after them in this matter. I wish we could get back the feeling that we had last September and last March. In September, while the crisis was at its height, I had occasion to go across London by road as far as Edmonton in North London, on the Sunday evening when everybody was streaming into the schools and public buildings to get gas masks. That was at the moment when people thought the danger was very imminent. When people are in that frame of mind they are prepared, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, to put up with a good many things which two or three years ago they would not have regarded as being things which the Government ought to ask them to undergo.
The case for this Bill is that we shall get back to that position again, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) said yesterday, there are people who can fix the date when we shall next be in that position; but when we get into it, it will be too late to attempt to operate a Clause of this sort. The provision to be made under the Clause is of a kind that requires adequate planning beforehand and some considerable time for construction, and unless we take steps now that will enable the necessary shelter to be provided, when the next crisis comes we shall find our selves as unprovided for as in September and March last. For these reasons, I hope the Lord Privy Seal will see his way


to accept the Amendment and give these people an opportunity of doing something to help themselves. They are, in the main, the kind of people who, if they are given the power of initiative, are capable of using it. In many of the large blocks of flats there are now residents' associations and similar corporate bodies in which the residents can get together, and which afford them an opportunity of making the necessary representations to the owners. I beseech the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the large number of people in London and other large towns who are now affected by this mode of living, to accept this Clause so that they may have some power of assisting them selves in those cases where the landlord has not shown, and is unlikely to show, any readiness to meet them

5.45 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I have had put into my hands within the last few minutes an Amendment which is not upon the Order Paper but which I presume it would be the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to move if the Amendment which we are now discussing were adopted. May I ask whether that is so?

Mr. H. Morrison: We propose to move it in either case, whether this one is adopted or not, if we are permitted to do so.

Sir J. Anderson: I feel in something of a difficulty because I do not believe there is any difference in purpose or intention between my colleagues and myself and hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it were the view of those who have had experience in the matter that modifying the procedure contemplated by the Clause to the extent which is suggested in the Amendment which has been moved, and possibly in the further Amendment to which I have just referred, without going any further, would have a useful moral effect in stimulating action, I should be extremely reluctant to put my own more limited experience against theirs. I say that frankly. What I am apprehensive of is that we might find ourselves involved in a great new administrative procedure which added to the obligations already in the Bill and involved a risk of something approaching a breakdown. But I can see the argument for giving the initiative to the tenants, because it would bring the landlord up to their

fence, at any rate, and would compel the landlord to go through the motions of producing a scheme and expose him to a certain amount of obloquy should he produce a scheme that is merely derisory. If I am correctly interpreting the views of hon. Members opposite, and that is what they have in contemplation, then I should be disposed to accept the Amendments, subject to possible reconsideration in another place.

5.49 p.m.

Dr. Guest: The right hon. Gentleman put the view that it was perhaps a question of bringing a landlord up to the fence, but that difficulty may arise not necessarily because he is immoral or not desirous of doing his duty, but because he is absent, or not get-at-able. Yesterday I had occasion, in another connection, to bring before the Committee some observations upon the difficulties which local authorities have in actually tracing an owner of property, and if they have a difficulty in tracing an owner it may also be very difficult for an owner to be got at by his tenants. In many cases property may be owned by a company, which is difficult to get at, or it may be administered by trustees, and the trustees may not be able to get at the owner. Further, there is the absent owner to be taken into account, the man who does not attend to his property, who cannot be got at, and is, perhaps, very careless. There are a large number of such owners. Some time ago I was living in a flat in a property which was administered by a trustee, and when it was necessary to get the consent of the owner to some alterations which were desired it was extremely difficult to get at the owner, because he was absent from the country and could not be communicated with. There is also the further case, mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), where property may be in the hands of a receiver. 
It is not so much a question of pressure being put upon certain landlords as of giving the initiative in the matter to the tenants in cases where the owner does not take the initiative. If the owner does not take the initiative because he is away, or is careless, or out of the country altogether, or if it is the case of a trustee who does not regard his trust sufficiently seriously, unless there is the possibility of the tenants taking the initiative we


shall get nothing done. As regards what the Lord Privy Seal said about the prospect of introducing big administrative machinery, the fact that the initiative is in the hands of the tenants will not make the position any different from what it would be if the initiative were in the hands of the landlord, and it does seem to be reasonable, not only from the point of view of applying compulsion, but from the point of view of getting a move on at all in certain cases, for the initiative to be in the hands of the tenants. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will agree either to the exact form of words or something similar.

5.52 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: The Mover of the Amendment said the tenants who exercised these rights would pay their proportion of the costs, but in the Clause we are putting a certain number of tenants—one-half or more than one-half —in the position of being able to have this work undertaken and to require the other tenants, who may not want it, to contribute to the cost.

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (5) of the new Clause we are discussing he will find that if the same proportion agree they become chargeable with the cost.

Sir R. Tasker: But it may be a question of the owner only receiving as his fee simple a fee farm rent, or a perpetual rent, which means the rent can never be increased.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: There is a provision in the Clause which we are not disturbing whereby the owner can recover 'by annual payments the capital expenditure involved. But I rise really to express our thanks to the Lord Privy Seal for accepting this Amendment and for his intimation that he will accept the further manuscript Amendment which I shall move at the proper stage. I recognise that there may have to be some little tidying-up for legal purposes, but we had here a real problem, about which we felt gravely worried in the interests of a very large number of people of the middle class and even well-to-do people, who had no reasonable protection, and we are very much obliged to the Lord Privy Seal for the sympathetic consideration he has given to the case

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: This Amendment does not affect me in any way, but I am rather interested in the point with which it is dealing. When he accepted the Amendment the Minister did not give us many reasons for doing so, and what I am not sure about is who is to put it into operation. Supposing 50 percent, of the tenants wish for this work to be under taken, what powers have they of seeing that it is done? That is a question which ought to be answered. Further, why should 51 percent, of the tenants in a particular block of flats have conferred upon them the power to lay a tax upon the remaining 49 percent, of the tenants? The work is done and the cost of it is distributed among all. We are dealing here with an Amendment the terms of which may prove to be very wide. Personally, I do not like the wording of it, and we have had no legal opinion on the matter. We may be going very much further than we realise at the present time if we are going to give powers which will enable a section of the tenants in a block of flats who want certain amenities to have them provided and then to distribute the cost over the whole of the tenants in the flats, whether the others wanted those amenities or not.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely the hon. Member appreciates that at the present moment the landlord can do it even if all the tenants dislike it.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but the landlord is letting his property. It is like a lawyer making his charge—he is giving them something for the money. I am thinking of a case where there are 100 people in a block of flats and 59 vote for this work to be done and the others do not want it to be done. Of course, the landlord can do it, just as he can put in electric light or anything else. Still, I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. Recently he came to my help in my own division—not intentionally but in a roundabout way. I hope the point I have raised will receive some further consideration and that the Minister, even if he accepts the Amendment, will look very carefully at the wording of it.

5.57 P.m.

Mr. Spens: I have had the advantage of seeing the manuscript Amendment which is going to be moved, and while I hope that hon. Members opposite will


realise that I am very much in sympathy with what is behind these Amendments, I think it is my duty to point out that a very practical difficulty is involved. The result of accepting these Amendments would be that the majority of tenants in a block of flats would be put in a position to compel the owner to prepare a scheme and to complete the work, and the owner is then to have the rights to recover the money from those tenants who happen to remain in possession over a period of 10 years, however much the area is bombed or not bombed. A great number of the owners of these properties are, in fact, trustees, and they have no funds what ever which they are authorised to expend upon a substantial capital improvement of this description, and what these Amendments do is to compel people reduced to a position like that to find money for the purpose personally, because they can find no trust money to do the work and have to take the chance of being able to re cover it hereafter from the tenants. As the Clause was drafted it was left to be a matter of agreement, of the owner coming to a bargain with the tenants, but the moment we make it compulsory owners have go to find the money and take the chance of getting it back. I suggest that a big crop of legal difficulties is being created.

Sir P. Harmon: On a point of Order. I think the House is somewhat confused as to its position. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is afraid of an Amendment which is about to be submitted which we have not seen. We ought to know something about the next Amendment before we really discuss it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): There is certainly an inconvenience in hon. Members not having before them the terms of an Amendment which has been referred to, and I have had the advantage of reading it, and I can assure the House that both Amendments deal with the same point, or that in my opinion there is no reason why the House should not proceed with and come to a decision on the Amendment now before the House.

Sir I. Albery: The point I was going to raise was approximately the same, that we are dealing at the present moment with an Amendment that is not on the Paper.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The reference which was made by the hon. and learned Member just now to a manuscript Amendment was not strictly in order, and it is quite clear that we are not discussing it at the moment. It is out of order to make any further reference to the manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Spens: There is very little in the Amendment now under discussion except that owners should prepare a scheme, but under the forthcoming Amendment, I am compelled to point out, they will have to build and to spend money, and that is a very different matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment will come on at a later stage.

Sir I. Albery: I do not think that you quite understood what I said. I was referring to an Amendment which I under stood was still before the House. I rather gathered that the Lord Privy Seal had indicated that he was prepared to accept this Amendment in view of another Amendment subsequently to be submitted and which is not upon the Order Paper.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I think that is not so. The House must take it that we are dealing with one particular Amendment. I will do my best to see that the Debate is kept to the amendment to the proposed Amendment, now before the House.

Sir I. Albery: I still have not been able to explain the one point which I wished to bring to your notice. A manuscript Amendment has been handed in by Members of the Opposition and seen by the Lord Privy Seal and the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). We have been led to believe that the seeing of that Amendment has an influence on the decision to which the House will come upon the Amendment under discussion. In the circumstances I suggest it is desirable that the Amendment should be read out, so that hon. Members may be aware of its contents before we part with this Amendment. In ordinary circum stances it would be upon the Paper. I am really only asking that we should be put into the same position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: For the convenience of certain Members of the House I shall be very glad to read out the terms of the manuscript Amendment,


but I must ask that the House proceed after that with the Question which is now before it. The manuscript Amendment referred to is: In line 21, to leave out from the beginning to "on" in line 23, and to insert:
Unless the occupiers of more than one half in number of separate parts of the building or block (other than parts thereof which are in the occupation of the owner of the building or block) dissent from the scheme, then the owner shall complete the same and.

Amendment agreed to. 6.5 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 7, at the end, to insert:
not being a building or block constructed by a local authority under the enactments relating to housing, or a building or block of buildings in connection with the construction of which assistance was given by a local authority under those Acts,
Since listening to the discussion I confess that my Amendment seems not so apt in its wording as I imagined it would be when I put it upon the Paper. I understood that the Clause was only to cover a block of flats and not converted houses. The Amendment was designed on the lines that blocks of flats only were covered by the Clause. None the less, I want to put the point, in the hope that my right hon. Friend will consider what is involved and, if the principle of the Amendment is accepted, will put in at a later stage what words are necessary.
The position is that under the Clause as it stands an owner, whether that be the local authority, a housing association or a housing trust, comes under the Clause. As the Clause read until a moment ago, if more than half of the tenants chose to go in for the scheme there would be a scheme, and as a result of that scheme the rest of the tenants would come in. The tenants of blocks of flats and buildings built under enactments relating to housing, in connection with the construction of which assistance was given by local authorities under the Housing Acts, may have tenants which are in the same position financially as tenants of houses who get what are commonly called the Anderson shelters, and tenants of three and four-storey tenement houses, for whom provision is now being made for the structural protection of basements— if there are basements.
I want to make it clear that neither a local authority, nor a housing association nor anybody else in the position of owner of those houses or blocks of buildings, will be in a position to quote this Bill and avoid the obligations to provide protection for their tenants. I understand that local authorities provide the Anderson shelters by administrative action under the 1937 Act free, and are receiving grants from the Government. I want the same position to obtain in the provision of shelters for blocks of working-class flats. I move the Amendment to make it clear to the local authorities and the tenants of the flats as well as to the owners whoever they may be, that they must come under the administrative scheme of the Minister and not take refuge under this Clause of the Bill.

Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.10 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I explained on the Second Reading of the Clause that it was not designed to deal with the case of ordinary working-class flats; and that being so, and the structure of the Clause being in several respects clearly inappropriate to that case I should be inclined to suggest that an Amendment on the lines proposed is not necessary and that its inclusion might lead to misunderstanding. There may be border line cases which would bring into question a block of ordinary working-class flats, built maybe with some assistance from the local authorities, in which case, as the Amendment stands the building would be disqualified from the operation of the Clause. It seems to me that a provision on these lines would not really serve any useful purpose.

6.11 p.m.

Sir R. Tasker: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? On the Second Reading of the Bill I put forward a case relating to blocks of flats built for the occupation of ex-service men. It seems to me that in the present discussion we are getting into a muddle because we are differentiating between one kind and type of building and another kind and type of building. In one type the Government are to give a grant and to another type they are proposing to deny a grant. If the great municipal authority with


which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) is associated puts up dwellings the Government will give a grant, but if dwellings are provided by a private individual or an association of private individuals, performing a great and beneficent act by erecting dwellings at uneconomic rents for ex-service men who were broken during the War, there is to be no contribution or grant.
I am not putting a hypothetical, but an actual case, that of the Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions for ex-service men in Fulham. When I asked a question as to whether a grant would be forthcoming for shelters in this case, the Lord Privy Seal answered that the construction of shelters for tenants would not come out of capital; it must therefore be assumed it came out of revenue, but the revenue is absorbed and those who determine the end should devise and provide the means to accomplish the design. I wish to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's Department in regard to what happened. When I followed this matter up my right hon. Friend, through the Home Office, very kindly directed one of his technical experts to come down to Fulham and visit the buildings. As a result, we received a suggestion that we should build a wall along the front of the building, almost entombing the tenants on the ground floor, but complete silence about a grant. Why should this House give a grant for shelters to people who are housed by the municipality and not to people who have suffered for their country and who are now almost totally incapacitated and can never recover? You cannot accomplish these ideals which are in the sky by putting your hands in the till if the till is empty. The Government are giving a grant in one case and denying it in another. Why can they not give equal treatment all round? These Amendments mean that the owner can do as he likes, provided he does what he is told to do by his tenants.

Mr. Duncan: In view of the statement of my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which he said that administratively a block of flats will be treated in the same way in the provision of Anderson shelters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, as art Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 21, to leave out from the beginning to "on" in line 23, and to insert:
Unless the occupiers of more than one-half in number of the separate parts of the building or block (other than parts thereof which are in the occupation of the owner of the building or block) dissent from the scheme, then the owner shall complete the same and.
The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. The Clause as it stands on the Order Paper provides that, if 50 per cent, or more of the occupiers indicate their willingness to contribute to and take part in a scheme of shelter prepared by the owner, the owner may proceed. It is thought that, in the light of the observations I made on the Second Reading of the Clause, that is not quite good enough, and that the position should be that the owner should be required to proceed, as he will be under the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), not if 50 per cent, or more indicate their wish that he should, but unless more than one-half of the occupiers of the separate parts of the building consent. This constructional work will be of great importance, and, while one would prefer that consent should not be required at all, and that there should be a direct obligation on the owner in any case, we feel that the Amendment will improve the Clause, and I am glad to know, from the intimation of the Lord Privy Seal, that the Government will be willing to accept it. I fully appreciate, of course, that some tidying up may be required, and that the Government may have to promote further Amendments in order to make the Clause a coherent whole and, in particular, to tidy up the operative parts of the Clause. In the meantime, I desire to express my appreciation of the Lord Privy Seal's cooperation with us in the matter, subject to the understanding that further Amendments will be promoted in another place.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I venture to emphasise again the fact that the important words in this Amendment are:
the owner shall complete.
These words are not included in the Clause on the Paper. So far as that is concerned, the obligation on the owner is to prepare a scheme, and, if more than


50 per cent, of the tenants consent to it, then, if the owner completes it, he is entitled to spread the cost over the tenants and get his money back. But that obviously leaves open the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, where the owner has not the money wherewith to do the work. These very important works are forcing an obligation on individuals, whoever they happen to be and in whatever capacity they happen to be the owners of premises, to do the work themselves and take the chance of getting their money back. I gave the instance of trustees, and another actual case is that of a trustee in bankruptcy. These words will force upon people such as that to find the money to do the work and take the chance of getting it back. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has recognised that further Amendments will be necessary, and it is only on that understanding that I can see my way to consent to this Amendment at all. On the understanding, however, that these points will somehow or other be dealt with in another place so as to protect the individual in such cases as I have indicated, I do not propose to detain the House further on the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

6.21p.m.

Mr. R. Morgan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 44, to leave out "one-tenth," and to insert "one-seventh."
The object of this Amendment is very simple. Seven years or some multiple of seven years is a normal term for leases, and I cannot understand why the Lord Privy Seal in this case should choose a period of 10 years. What would happen in the case of a tenant who has a lease for seven years and who leaves at the end of the seven years? The liability in respect of the last three years would render it necessary for the incoming tenant to pay so high a price that it would be almost impossible for him to pay an economic rent. It does not seem to me that in any case the cost of the works would be so large that it could not be met in seven years.

6.22p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I beg to second the Amendment.
As my hon. Friend has said, except in the City of London, seven years is the normal term for a lease. I do not know how far leases in the City of London extend to 10 years, but this period of 10 years would make it very difficult for owners to give the fullest co-operation with the Lord Privy Seal in carrying out great schemes affecting property, and it seems to me that a seven-year period would be much better. Great embarrassment would be caused to the owner when the ordinary period of seven years terminates, leaving a further three years' compensatory period still to run. It is difficult to understand the reason for choosing a period of 10 years, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider the point of view which has been put to him and see whether he could not make the period seven years instead of 10 years.

6.23 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The period of 10 years is admittedly quite arbitrary. It has no relation to the assumed prevalence of a period of seven years for leases, or to leases of any other period. We have to provide that the landlord shall be able to recover his expenses from his tenants, just as is the case in another part of the Bill which deals with commercial buildings, and it seemed to us that 10 years was a reasonable period, balancing the interest. of the landlord against the interest of the tenant, over which to spread the repayment. The fact that a large proportion of leases may be for seven years was represented to me while the Clause was under discussion earlier, but I confess that it seemed to me to be quite irrelevant, because, if the average term of a lease is seven years, the average outstanding period of current leases will not be seven years, but presumably something near three and a-half years. The position of the owner after the lease has expired is that he is free to obtain, by the play of the market, whatever rent he can from a new incoming tenant, and, on the view that the provision of air-raid shelters will in course of time enhance the value of buildings in the eyes of prospective tenants, it seemed to the Government to be not unfair to leave the landlord, in respect of leases which may have expired during the period of 10 years, to recover the balance of the amount due to him in respect of a particular portion of the building as best he can.

Mr. C. Williams: I would ask the Minister whether he could not accept this Amendment. The longer the period over which the repayment is spread, the greater is the advantage to the actual tenants, and some of them may escape a good deal of the payment. The Minister's argument that in the case of a lease for seven years the average outstanding period would be three years, or whatever it may be, is really the exact case for supporting the proposal that the period should not be so long as 10 years, and that seven years is certainly long enough. Surely the people who are going to get the advantage of this work should pay for it in a shorter period, so that it may be certain that they will pay their fair share. Moreover, it may be that in a few years' time we shall have a Government in power that will not want any of these things, and then this burden will fall on the public. I have always been an optimist, and I refuse to believe it is not possible that such a time may come, though I admit that there are very grave dangers at present. I think, however, that the Minister might on this occasion accept an Amendment put forward by his own supporters, seeing that he has been so kind to the Opposition in accepting Amendments of theirs alter very little argument. Surely, having done that, he might meet us in some way.

6.30 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I also would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this. He pointed out, with truth, that there is no theoretically perfect period, because leases are always running out; but, within limits, the shorter the period the better. Little or no efforts have been made up to now to accord protection to people in my position— I speak as a tenant—and the reason is obvious. In most cases the companies concerned have very small liquid assets, and their uncertainties are very great. If the period is as long as 10 years, they know that they will never recover the expenditure from the tenants, because the possibility of evacuation is going to create a surplus of accommodation. Therefore, there is not the slightest chance that, on the renewal of leases which run out, the landlord will recover the old rent plus what I might call the A.R.P. rent. The Minister may in a few months' time find, with the Act on the Statute Book, that there is virtually a sit-

down strike; that the work will not be done, not because these people do not want to do it but because they cannot.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: The owners of property seem to have a large number of defenders in this Debate. It is suggested that they are in a very bad financial position in regard to the rent they are able to charge. I am pleased to find the Minister, for once, proving himself superior to the appeals made to him by his own supporters. I trust that he will not reconsider the attitude he has already taken. One would suppose that owners of property have no reserves of capital. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has just stated that they would not be able to find the capital to provide these additions, and that they probably would not be able to conform to the terms of the Act. We know that landlords have always complained of the insufficiency of their returns, yet there is no safer investment for capital than houses, and no investment which yields higher average returns.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: The owner's interest is not the only consideration in regard to this period, but I suggest that the owner himself would be better served if the period were 10 years than if it were seven. It has been argued by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that the amount which would be added when a new lease began would be so great that the landlord would not be able to recover it from the tenant. Is not that an argument against the Amendment? Would not the amount of the repayments be less if the period were 10 years than if it were seven years? The lower rent would be more likely to attract a tenant. The tenant also should be considered. In many cases he would not be a very rich man, and the longer period would enable him to pay a lower rent. The Minister put forward a perfectly sound argument, and I think the House would be well advised to accept the longer period.

6.36 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): My right hon. Friend has asked me to say a word on this matter. I am sure it would not be the wish of the House that


we should consider this matter on the basis of landlords versus tenants. It is not a question of protecting one against the other, but of trying to achieve a balance in fairness to both. That is important, not only on the ground of abstract justice. It is evident that, if the terms imposed on landlords are felt by them to be unfair, the Clause will not be worked by them with the same enthusiasm as it should be, and the effect will be that there will be a lack of shelters. My right hon. Friend has already told the House that an alteration of the period at this stage would cause an anomaly as between the period for commercial buildings and the period for a factory occupied on a short lease. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment at this stage. But, at the same time, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that, as the manuscript Amendments which he has accepted at very short notice will require to be examined, in order to see how the substance of them can be fitted in, he will undertake to give this matter consideration at the same time.

6.38p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: My right hon. Friend says that an anomaly would be created in respect of these buildings and factory buildings if the period were altered to seven years. That is so; but, after all, the 10 years is for a factory, which is an earning thing, and the position of the ordinary tenant of these flats is very different. Would he give full weight to the fact that the difference is there, and that it is a very wide difference; and also that in the case of a factory there is a likelihood of the same tenant being there for a very long time and the payment going on, whereas the Lord Privy Seal has himself pointed out the likelihood of the tenancy of one of these flats changing at least once in 10 years?

6.39p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider that, in another part of the Bill, there is provision for local authorities to advance money to enable small householders to erect shelters for themselves, and that this is on a basis of 10 years' repayment?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams),

we shall bear that consideration in mind; but I would point out that the 10 years for a factory also applies where there is only a short period for the lease to run.. With regard to what the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) has said, that reinforces my argument that we should not disturb this period. I hope that, in view of my assurance, my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment.

Sir R. Tasker: Will my right hon. Friend also take into consideration the case of the trustee who enjoys an income not for his own benefit but which he has to disperse among the beneficiaries, in accordance with the terms of the trusteeship?

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I welcome the fact that the Government at this stage are not accepting this Amendment, but I should not like them to think that we regard the position under this Clause in this respect as altered by the Amendments which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison.) and I moved earlier this afternoon. We have acted on the assumption throughout that it was intended that this Clause should work. All we have tried to do is to provide machinery to achieve what we understood it was the object of the Government should be achieved. We did not think that this was a mere piece of window-dressing, put in in the belief that it would never get beyond the window-dressing stage. Throughout the Bill 10 years is the period provided for these repayments, and we should require far stronger arguments than have been adduced by the supporters of the Amendment or by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to be convinced that alterations made elsewhere would justify the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 53, to leave out Sub-section (9).
On the last occasion when I questioned the Lord Privy Seal I found the Government Front Bench exceedingly reasonable, and I regret the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy has just remarked to his right hon. Friend, "I will deal with this." We are very anxious to find out what the significance of this Sub-section is. It may


operate in a great many cases to prevent all efforts to ensure that shelters shall be provided for these persons by the owners, from being effective. Take the kind of cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), where you have one of these old houses which has some waste land, which was at one time a garden, possibly the land in front of the coach house and stables, which is let to one or other of the tenants. Sometimes the tenants have the joint use of such land. In other cases—in the block of flats where I live, for instance—the old kitchen garden has been, to a considerable extent, let off to a market gardener; and I imagine the owner has no right of access to this land, and, as the law stands at present, could be prevented from going on it for the purpose of carrying on any works.
We envisaged a state of affairs in which this provision is to be made for the safety of the lives and limbs of the tenants. We are exceedingly anxious that the Clause shall be worked, and that the owner, having this piece of land at the side of the house, shall be in a position to go upon it and carry out any reasonable and necessary scheme. We do not want him to be provided with the answer, "It is true that the land is there, but, although it is a sensible place upon which to make provision, owing to the working of Sub-section (9), I am relieved of the responsibility of providing for this shelter, because I have parted with the power to go on to the land." I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that position is a simple one to explain to us, and we would like to know exactly the significance of this Sub-section as viewed by the Government.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. W, S. Morrison: I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) did not detect anything amusing in the tone with which I informed my right hon. Friend that I would attempt to deal with his manuscript Amendment, but it was the fact that I had early notice of it at the time it was handed in. The explanation I should give to the hon.

Member about this depends upon the understanding, in the first place, of what was the general scheme of this Clause. It was a voluntary scheme. All the arrangements which it contemplates were to be the result of agreement between the landlord and the tenants, and between the majority of the tenants themselves. It was not framed in that way upon any compulsory basis at all. You have to proceed on either one or the other of these two lines. It is either to be compulsory in the full sense, in which case you have to have some supervising authority to see that the works are up to standard, and you have to have a number of consequential provisions for compensation for the exercise of compulsory powers, and none of these things find a place in this Clause. All along, what was contemplated was that the landlord in the proper case should use the facilities which he has at his disposal for providing shelter for his tenants.
This particular Sub-section which has attracted the attack of the hon. Member for South Shields is one of purely a declaratory nature. Its omission, as his Amendment suggests, would, in reality, make no difference to the legal position of the parties as defined in the rest of the Clause, but it would leave these parties perhaps in some doubt as to their position, and force them to have recourse to lawyers, and may be to the courts, in order to find out the actual position. [An Hon. Member: "The lawyers would not object."] I do not know that they would. "Live and let live" is a very good motto in every set of circumstances. But that is the answer to this Amendment. It is to make clear the position of the law, and its abstraction would merely make the position obscure, and I hope that for that reason the hon. Member will not persist in it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 125.

Division No. 168.]
AYES.
[3.58 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dodd, J. S.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cartland, J. R. H.
Doland, G. F.


Allen, Col. J. Sandemen (B'knhead)
Cary, R. A.
Donner, P. W.


Anderson, R(. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Drewe, C.


Assheton, R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duggan, H. J.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Channon, H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Beechman, N. A.
Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Colman, N. C. D.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Bernays, R. H.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Bird, Sir R. B.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Findlay, Sir E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk. N.)
Fleming, E. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Foot, D. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Furness, S. N.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Gledhill, G.


Brass, Sir W.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Gluckstein, L. H.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gridley Sir A. B.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Culverwell, C. T.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Butcher, H. W.
De la Bėre, R.
Grimston, R. V.




Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J, R. J.
Salt, E. W.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Magnay, T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Hambro, A. V.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Sandys, E. D.


Hannah, I. C.
Making, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Harbord, Sir A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Markham, S. F.
Smithers, Sir W.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Snadden, W. McN.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Medlicott, F.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hepworth, J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spens. W. P.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Herbert, Lt.Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Higgs, W. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Storey, S.


Holdsworth, H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ,s.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hopkinson, A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N, J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hunloke, H. P.
Owen, Major G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Hunter, T.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Touche, G. C.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Patrick, C. M.
Train, Sir J.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Peaks, O.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


James, Wing-commander A. W. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Jennings, R.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R, L.


Joel, D. J. B.
Petherick, M.
Turton, R. H.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Pilkington, R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Evan


Keeling, E. H.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Ward, Lieut.Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Radford, E. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Kimball, L.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wells, Sir Sydney


Lees-Jones, J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Levy, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lewis, O.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Liddall, W. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lipson, D. L.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Little, J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lloyd, G. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. D. S.
Rowlands, G.
Wragg, H.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A, C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel sir E. A.
York, C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


McKie, J. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES AYES.—


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Salmon, Sir I.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kirby, B. V.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Kirkwood, D.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Frankel, D.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Adamson, W. M.
Gallacher, W.
Lathan, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gardner, B. W.
Lawson, J. J.


Banfield, J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Leach, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lee, F.


Barr. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leslie, J. R.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Logan, D. G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Lunn, W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Benson, G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.


Burke, W. A.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
McGhee, H. G.


Cape, T.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maclean, N.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hayday, A.
Marshall, F.


Clynes, Rt, Hon. J. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Maxton, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Collindridge, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cove, W. G.
Hicks, E. G.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Muff, G.


Daggar, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jagger, J.
Paling, W.


Davies, Ft. J. (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parker, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr).
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parkinson, J. A.


Day, H.
John, W.
Pearson, A.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ede, J. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.




Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Watkins, F. C.


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Watson, W. MoL.


Ridley, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Han. J. C.


Riley, B.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Welsh, J. C.


Ritson, J.
Stokes, R. R.
Westwood, J,


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Sanders, W. S.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Wilkinson, Ellen


Sexton. T. M.
Thorne, W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Shinwell, E.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Silkin, L.
Tinker, J. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Silverman, S. S.
Viant, S. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Simpson, F. B.
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Walker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 169.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Albery, Sir Irving
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Hely-Hutchinson, M, R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Procter, Major H. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Radford, E. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Assheton, R.
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Rankin, Sir R.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Higgs, W. F.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. p. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bernays, R. H.
Higgs, Hon. Q. MoG.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Holdsworth, H.
Remer, J. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, J. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boulton, W. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Howitt, Dr. A. B
Ropner, Colonel L.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodkridge)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hunter, T.
Rowlands, G.


Brooks, H. (Lowisham, W.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ruggles-Brise. Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salt, E. W.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Carver, Major W. H.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cary, R. A.
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Lamb, Sir J, Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Snadden, W. McN.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Levy, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lewis, O.
Somervelle, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Liddall, W. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L..
Lipson, D. L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir M. Page
Little, J.
Spens. W. p.


Crooks, Sir J. Smedley
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Storey, S.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strickland, Captain W. F


Denville, Alfred
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Dodd, J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn


Doland, G. F.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sueter, Rear Admiral Sir M. F.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourno)


Drewe, C.
Magnay, T.
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duggan, H. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mander, G. le M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Turton, R. H.


Ellis, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Markham, S. F.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Medlicott, F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Warrender, Sir V.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Foot, D M.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.
White, H. Graham


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gledhill, G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Munro, P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Neven-Spene, Major B. H. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nicolson, Han. H. G.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wragg, H.


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Hannah, I. C.
Owen, Major G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Palmer, G. E. H.



Harbord, Sir A.
Peake, O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Sir P. A.
Peat, C. U.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Barnes, A. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Ammon, C. G.
Barr J.


Adamson, W. M.
Banfield, J. W.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.







Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bevan, A.
Hicks, E. G.
Price, M. P.


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.


Bromfield, W.
Hollins, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Buchanan, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Ridley, G.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Riley, B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ritson, J.


Chater, D.
John, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sanders, W. S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M,


Cooks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Collindridge, F.
Kirkwood, D.
Silverman, S. S.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Latham, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B.Lees- (K'ly)


Dalton, H.
Leach. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhougnton)
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (Hgh'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dabbie, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T.H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mclean, N.
Watson, W. MoL.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Marshall, F.
Westwood. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilmot, J.


Halt, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Harvey. T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Oliver, G. H.



Hayday, A.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson. A.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

6.59 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Before we part with this Clause, I wish to make one or two remarks upon it. I have listened to the discussion on practically all the Amendments to this new Clause, and I appreciate the fact that, although the Government and the Opposition have been anxious to hammer out a Clause which would really work, as I see it, the Government have, in fact, turned a complete somersault from the optional Clause, the working of which they believed would be successful, to one which is purely mandatory. The acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has changed the entire character of the Clause. I would not have any objection to that if I were at all confident that under the newly adopted wording the Clause would work any better, but it has been agreed on both sides that it is very doubtful whether it will work any better. In the speech which my right hon. Friend made a few minutes ago on the Amendment to leave out "one-tenth" and to insert "one-seventh" he made it clear that success is only possible

if we get a Clause under which landlord and tenant would work together. As it is now, the only thing which gives me any satisfaction is the Lord Privy Seal's statement—and I understand that almost an agreement has been made with the Opposition— that the whole matter will be reconsidered at a further stage of the Bill.
May I make clear why I say that the Government have made a complete change? Under the original scheme of the Clause a landlord would presumably consult his tenants beforehand, and if 51 per cent, of them agreed to the scheme and would support it he would go ahead with it, knowing that he would recover at any rate a substantial portion of the cost from tenants who were anxious to get these new shelters. As the position is now, the landlord is forced to do something if 50 per cent, of the tenants—who may be only there for a year or two— signify their approval, which they are likely to do if it is not going to cost them anything.
With regard to the agreement that I understand has been made with the Opposition, the Lord Privy Seal has said that these matters will have to be very carefully considered at a further stage, and probably new Clauses will have to


be brought forward. I want to ask him a very definite question. If on further consideration it is found that it is not feasible, or not advisable, to work on the system of compulsion, is he then at liberty to go back to the scheme of the original Clause? I want to be clear that he is not bound by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Shields to adopt in any new Clause which he may hereafter bring forward the scheme of compulsion set out in that Amendment. If that is clear I think there is no possible objection, because the whole matter could be considered de novo. Whether the facts eventually show that the compulsory scheme is right or not, all of us want to get the air-raid precautions scheme working, and the best way to do that is by agreement between landlord and tenant.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: The net result of the hon. Gentleman's speech is that in matters affecting property owners it is sacrilege for this House to impose any compulsion, but if it is a matter of calling up men to fight, then compulsion is essential. Property owners, even though they may live many miles away from the property affected, may be allowed to leave the workmen in that property entirely unprotected from any attack, and it would be a dreadful thing for this House to impose any obligations on the owners. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman opposite should develop that idea, because we are trying on all sides of the House to make this a workable Measure. The hon. Gentleman opposite now strongly objects because the Lord Privy Seal, forsooth, has accepted an Amendment from the Opposition benches. I thought it was the object of the Opposition to try to join with the Government in improving the Bill, but there seems to be a suspicion in the minds of certain hon. Members opposite that anything the Lord Privy Seal may accept is to be condemned if it comes from the Opposition side. My experience may be different from that of the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that tenants, either of the kind of property we have been discussing or of any other kind, are going to act in the irresponsible way which he fears. He said these tenants will of course vote in favour of having protection provided against air raids, because it will cost them nothing.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I said it might not cost them anything.

Mr, Morrison: I do not wish to be involved in an argument with the hon. Gentleman, but there was a considerable amount of illogicality about the vigorous protest he made against any compulsion on owners of flats, although Parliament is bringing compulsion on almost everybody in the community in connection with the air menace, and I do not see why owners of flats should be excepted.

Question, "That the proposed Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Designated premises to remain unaltered.)

7.7 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, after "in," to insert "or on."
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Agreements under Part II between local authority and occupiers or owners of factory premises and commercial buildings.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, to leave out "it," and to insert "them."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after "for," to insert "all or any of."

This is another drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Code for occupiers of factories, etc.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 40, to leave out from "code" to the end of line 41, and to insert:
prescribing requirements with which the shelter must comply, and giving advice as to incidental matters and as to methods to be followed in providing the shelter.
I explained in Committee that in the course of the preparation of the code it was found to be assuming a form different from that which was contemplated when the Bill was first drafted. I explained why it had been found necessary to focus attention in the code on the standards of protection rather than the


types of shelter. The Amendment now proposed follows Amendments that were accepted in Committee yesterday in view of that change in the form of the code.

Question, ''That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill,"put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

7.10 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, at the end, to insert:
and such code shall not exclude the provision of a deep or heavily protected shelter.
This applies to factory premises, factories, mines, and commercial buildings, and although the general discussion covered this yesterday, the specific point, with regard especially to factories and the other classes of premises mentioned here, is not quite covered. For such premises, for instance, as the Port of London authority or of any other large port, there is a special reason for having the power to construct, or rather not to disallow the construction of, a deep or heavily protected shelter at a point which it may be be vitally important in the national interest that work should be maintained, and which is likely to attract a particularly violent air attack. At such centres as munition works, aeroplane engine works, a port, or other works where it is essential that work should be not only maintained but, in so far as is humanly possible, continuously maintained, you must have what amounts really to military fortification, and not splinter and blast-proof accommodation. It is for the purpose of assuring that the possibility of such construction would not be excluded that I move the Amendment.

Mr. Woods: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.13 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, because I submit it is quite unnecessary. I explained yesterday that the standard of shelter prescribed by the code is a minimum, that is, a standard to which the shelter provided may attain, but which it may exceed, and it must be quite clear from the wording of the main provision in the Bill with regard to the standard of shelter to be provided that that is so. The same point arises in connection with the

Clause which provides for the payment of grants, and I have made it clear more than once—and it is indeed clear. in the relevant Clause— that grants may be paid in respect of shelter provided at the factory or in a commercial building which goes beyond the minimum standard prescribed in the code, if approval is obtained beforehand to the provision of such shelter. It follows from that that such an Amendment as this is quite unnecessary. Apart from that, I am advised that these words would not fit into the wording that has been adopted in the Clause in question and in subsequent Clauses of the Bill.

Dr. Guest: Does that mean in effect that in the case of an application for an institution of vital national importance where an air-raid shelter provided was of a kind that could be described as heavily protected or a deep shelter, the right hon. Gentleman would withhold his consent?

Sir J. Anderson: What I mean is that the Bill clearly provides for the consideration of such a case and for the Minister giving consent in suitable circumstances. In that case grant will be paid, not in respect of the cost of providing shelter of the minimum standard, but in respect of the cost of providing shelter of the higher standard.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: May I try to elicit a further assurance from my right hon. Friend on this matter? I think the House is in sympathy with the intention of the hon. Member in moving this Amendment, but I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that it is not necessary to the Bill and would not strengthen it since, even with the hon. Member's Amendment, the ultimate decision would still rest with the Lord privy Seal. The Government's intentions in this matter have, I think, been made clear. In general, a splinter or blast-proof shelter will be regarded as sufficient. I think the Government have also made it clear that they recognise that in certain exceptional cases, where the danger is more than the average, where the work carried on is of such great national importance that it must be carried on inspite of the danger, and where evacuation from the area would be contrary to the national interest, it will be necessary to construct a shelter of a stronger character than that which is necessary in other


parts of the country. My right hon. Friend, in his reply to the hon. Member, said that in those special cases a grant would be given in excess of the grant to be given in the less vulnerable areas. What I wish to know is whether he will make the standard of the code higher for those factories and areas. As matters stand, if the owner of a factory comes to my right hon. Friend and says he wishes to provide stronger protection and a deeper shelter in view of the exceptional danger of the factory's position, I understand my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider giving that additional grant. Will he himself insist that this stronger form of protection will be provided, under a special code, in these special cases?

7.19 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The code under the Act will provide as the minimum standard to be obtained a standard of splinter and blast-proof protection. That will be laid down as a minimum standard, and provision will be made whereby, in suitable cases, application can be made for approval of the provision of shelter of a higher standard, and on approval being given that shelter of a higher standard will attract the normal rate of grant. The higher standard of shelter is not being laid down in the code. The code is not to be framed on that basis, but I am taking steps to issue and make widely available not only the handbook to which I referred yesterday which I think will be published to-morrow—A.R.P. Handbook No. 5— which is intended to bring together all the information available in regard to the problem of protection, but also standard designs and these will include designs for heavily protected shelters, so that the information which will not be contained in the code itself in regard to the alternative designs for shelter, will be available to those concerned.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry to pursue this matter further, but may I ask my right hon. Friend what he proposes to do in the case of a factory which in his opinion, owing to the exceptional vulnerability of its situation, ought to be provided with a stronger shelter? I would like him to assure us that he will not give a grant to such a factory unless it provides adequate

shelter and that he will insist on the provision of adequate shelter of a stronger character if in his opinion it is necessary.

Sir J. Anderson: The Bill does not contain any provision by which an owner or occupier of a factory can be compelled to provide a shelter beyond the standard of the code. That has been made clear from the outset. The special cases in which it may be considered that a higher standard of shelter should be provided, will be dealt with by way of administration and by negotiation between the Government and the factory owners or occupiers concerned.

Mr. Woods: I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal, with regard to a factory where special permission is granted, can he give any indication to the House as to what he would consider special circumstances in which a grant should be made?

Sir J. Anderson: I could not do that. Each case will have to be considered on its merits.

Dr. Guest: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 6, leave out "Part of this."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.']

CLAUSE 13—(Duty of occupiers and owners of factory premises, mines and commercial buildings to make reports.)

7.24 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, after "living," to insert "or during an air raid, transacting business."
Probably the right hon. Gentleman understands the object of this Amendment. Under this Clause owners and occupiers of certain buildings and premises are to be subject to the duty of reporting to the officer of the local authority or to the Government inspector on the measures taken to provide shelter. This applies to factory premises, mines or commercial buildings. In the case of commercial buildings, the Clause refers to


those who are '' working or living '' in the premises. I ask hon. Members to consider the circumstances of some commercial buildings in vulnerable areas like London, Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham. First you have the ordinary business premises in which a very large number of people may be conducting business negotiations. There is also the more outstanding case of large department stores. You have these not only in the West End but on the fringe, especially in the boroughs. Probably all come within the category of those having not less than 50 employés for whom the owner would have to make provision. If provision is made on that basis, when an air raid occurred the number of customers in the concern might be 1,000 and although there is a measure of compulsion in the Clause it would never be possible for the staff to reach the shelter because the thousand customers would all be making for the same place.
At present there is no mention of compulsion to include those who are transacting business in the premises yet it seems to me that where the owners of such commercial buildings, in their preparations, are willing to provide accommodation not only for the staff but for those who are in the building, or likely to be in the building during an air raid, they should at least have recognition of the amount of accommodation which they provide when they are making application for grant. This might apply to many classes of buildings but I have principally in mind those commercial buildings in which daily negotiations are going on with a large number of people and also departmental stores.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Clause imposes upon the owner of a commercial building the obligation to make a report, now, in peace-time, and what he is asked to state in his report is what measures he is taking to provide air-raid shelter for persons living or working in the building during an air-raid. The first thing I ask the House to recollect is how essential it is, when you place an obligation on a man, that it should be a certain obligation, and that he should know what you are asking him to report about, and, though I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, I find great difficulty in understanding how you could expect the owner of a commerical build-

ing to forecast, with any approximate degree of accuracy, the number of persons who might be transacting business in his premises during an air-raid. The obligation which Parliament is laying upon him here is perfectly intelligble and certain. It asks him to provide for the persons working or living in the building. He knows the average number of persons who are living or working in the building. It is very hard for him to give any possible indication of how much or how little shelter would be required for persons who might be there transacting business during an air raid. Apart from that difficulty and uncertainty, for which alone I would find it hard to accept the Amendment, I would point out, if it is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, that even if the Amendment were carried, it would not advance matters much further. It would only impose an obligation on the owner to report what steps he is taking in regard to this hypothetical number of customers.

Mr. Alexander: Except that it might persuade the Government to adopt Amendments which could then be moved to Clause 21.

Mr. Morrison: I am dealing with the Order Paper as it is and I find it congested enough, without exercising my fancy to imagine Amendments which are not there. I appreciate that this Amendment if carried would probably be introductory to a series of amendments, but, in fact, if the House does not accept this. Amendment, nothing will be lost because the obligation is only upon the owner to report and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press it.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speech which he has just made. This is only a sort of preliminary canter, if I may put it in that way. There is only to be a report about these big shops and commercial buildings. I suggest that this is a very curious Amendment to come from the Socialist Benches. It proposes that all these great stores should have this amount of subsidy coming into them from the Government. I cannot help thinking that it was not moved in the interests of A, B, or C stores, but as an ordinary representative of the taxpayers, I do not see myself falling into line with the great leaders of the Socialist party in putting


this preliminary burden on the Government to assist the great, big, wealthy stores and allow them to say,"We shall have 1,000 or 2,000 people shopping with us at a given time, and, therefore, we must have this enlargement for that purpose." This is very different from the case of a great factory where men are working, and I think the actual customers on the premises for the time being should be left out of consideration by the Government. If this matter affected only the co-operative stores in my own division, I might take a different line, but when we think of other great stores, I must not let my prejudice in favour of the co-operatives outweigh my judgment of the general case.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I am not prepared to follow my hon. Friend in the discussion of party considerations. The purpose of the Bill, in so far as it is concerned with air-raid shelters, is to provide shelter for people who are working in factories and business premises, and while I am not satisfied that the method proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite for dealing with this difficulty is a sound one, I realise, and I think the House as a whole realises, that he has put his finger on a difficulty which does arise in this connection. We are concerned to provide shelter for the people who are working in these business premises, and if there happen to be hundreds of customers on the premises at the moment of an air raid, it will be very hard to say that the men and women behind the counter shall have shelter and that the people on the other side of the counter are to be bombed without shelter. I think the best way, probably, of dealing with the difficulty is to regard the customers as being persons for whom public shelter should be provided, and that is a responsibility which rests with the Government, namely, to advise local authorities as to the categories of persons for whom public shelter should be provided. At the moment I think the local authorities are in the main advised to provide public shelter for persons likely to be caught in the streets, but if the Government could make it clear that that general category should include those likely to be in business premises in the neighbourhood transacting business, it would be the best way of meeting the difficulty.

Mr. Hicks: I would like to make my observations by way of a question, and to ask what steps the Lord Privy Seal proposes to take to deal with the very large number of people who might be neither working nor living on the premises. The Hailey Report indicated, to take an extreme case, that the resident population of the City of London is about 11,000, but that during the day the population is about 500,000.There is a very large difference between the residential population and the people who work or who may be in the City of London doing business, and one can easily imagine that in the event of an air raid such buildings as banks, restaurants, and, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) I would add Woolworth's, so that he might be able to take shelter there instead of in the co-operative stores, would naturally be sought out for the purpose of obtaining some sort of protection from bombing from the air, provided there were no underground or other shelters available. Some steps must be taken. As to whether it would be the owner of the premises who could best indicate to the Lord Privy Seal the number of people who would ordinarily be round about his premises, transacting business or living there, I do not know, but it he was the best person to give such a figure, it would seem folly not to utilise his experience and probably his willingness to give such information in order that some sort of protection should be provided.
I do not know the best way to do it, but obviously there is a problem here, and someone must make inquiries as to the numbers of people needing protection and what shelter there is available. If we take the instance of banks and great crowds rushing in at a given moment, those banks ought to have some indication that their places are likely to be used for some emergency shelter in order that they might be able to organise their business in such a way that they would feel that they were giving protection to those who needed it at the moment without damaging their business. I am certain that the Lord Privy Seal and those associated with him must have thought about this matter, and I should like to have some indication as to what steps they propose to take to find out the numbers of people likely to want accom-


modation and how they can be given protection in the event of an emergency, if the Government do not accept this Amendment.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Boulton: Where is the border line in this Amendment? Does it include ordinary shops, and, if so, is every shopkeeper in this country to be called upon to provide shelter for possible customers? How could shopkeepers provide shelter for all possible customers? I think that if the right hon. Gentleman were to draw the line at, say, a large factory or something of that sort, or he might have co-operative societies in mind, it would be wise, but if he is including all shops, I do not think it is possible or that it will work.

7.39 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: Might I put a different point of view? All the speeches on this Amendment suggest that trade and business will be usual or normal, but I rather visualise, not that industry would be paralysed, but that in the case of war in modern conditions it would not be possible to carry on our retail trade in the ordinary way and that it would be necessary for the Government to make special arrangements for the distribution of food and so on. In those circumstances I think that to assume that the great stores, such as the co-operatives, Harrods, the Army and Navy Stores, or any of the big shops would be carrying on trade in the usual way, with the ordinary customers blocking the doors, is to assume something that would not be likely to be realised in the case of war. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) is more or less right, and that it would be the duty of local authorities to make proper provision, when there was an air raid, for people occupying the streets and going about their ordinary business, but to assume that all the big stores would be carrying on their trade as usual is, I think, to imagine something that I am afraid would not be a reality in the case of war.

7.41 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The Government take the view that this would be an impossible obligation to put on the owners of commercial buildings. The number of people who might be resorting to such buildings

for the purpose of transacting business in time of war is something which it is quite impossible for anyone at the present time to estimate, but the policy of the Government undoubtedly would be, in the event of war, to discourage by every means possible an undue concentration of people anywhere. The obligations imposed by the Bill on factory occupiers, owners of commercial buildings, mine owners, and so on is a perfectly precise obligation related to numbers that can be ascertained with precision. The numbers in every case are the peace-time numbers which the buildings are adapted to accommodate, whether as workers or as residents, and it is in regard to those numbers that the obligation would apply. As regards members of the public who may resort to those buildings, one would expect a greatly reduced number at any particular time under conditions of war, and the view of the Government is that those persons should be regarded, from the point of view of the provision of shelter, as in fact in the position of people who happen to be caught in the streets.

Mr. Alexander: The Government are putting compulsion on the owners of this class of commercial buildings to provide for their employés, and it is useless to answer by saying that all others who may be in the building should be regarded as being in the streets, when their presence there may in fact preclude any proper use of the provision made for the workers.

Sir J. Anderson: I have not completed my argument. From the point of view of the provision of shelter, the view of the Government is that these people should be regarded as in the same position as people who may be caught in the streets. Local authorities are being advised, in the survey which they are now making with a view to the provision of public shelters, to take adequate account of the likelihood of a proportion of the normal population of the area being away from their homes or places of business at the time of a raid.
There is one other point which is very relevant in this connection. Many of these buildings are buildings which could be adapted to provide public shelters, and the provisions of the Bill with regard to the designation of buildings have been drawn with that fact in view. It is contemplated that local authorities should inform themselves, in the course of their


survey, of the possibilities offered by buildings of this kind and where a building offers possibilities of shelter in excess of what may be required for the people normally living or working in the building, that public shelter should be there provided. That public shelter would, of course, be available for people who happened to be in the building at the time for the purpose of transacting business. It is on those lines that, in

the view of the Government, this problem should be attacked, and not by way of putting on employers or occupiers of factories or owners of commercial buildings obligations which in fact it would be quite impossible for them to fulfil.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 206.

Division No. 170.]
AYES.
[7.44 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hayday, A.
Pearson, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Quibell, 0. J. K.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Benson, G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Riley, B.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A, (Pontypool)
1-Ubim.on, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S>


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, J| J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Strauss. G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee F.
Summerskill, Or. Edith


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. B.
Thorns, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. MoL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean. N.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
West wood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, m. Hon. A.
Montague, F.
Wilmot, J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.



Groves, T. E.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. 6. J.
Brawn, Brig -Ger.. H. C. (Newbury)
odd, J. S.


Albery, Sir Irving
Bull, B. B.
Doland, G. F.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Han. Sir R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Butcher, H. W.
Drewe, C.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gary, R. A.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n
Eastwood, J. F.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Chapman. A. (Rutherglen)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Ellis, Sir G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Bernays, R. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Evans, 0.0. (Cardigan)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Boulton, W. W.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Findlay, Sir E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Fleming, E. L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. C-
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Foot, D. M.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Davies. C. (Montgomery)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Furness, S. N.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Denville, Alfred
Fyfe, D. P. M.




George, major G Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKie, J. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Gledhill, G.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Magnay, T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Graham, Captain A. C.(Wirral)
Maitland, Sir Adam
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Smithers, Sir W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mander, G. le M.
Snadden, W. MoN.


Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Hambro, A. V.
Markham, S. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hammersley, S. S.
Medlicott, F.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hannah, I.C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Spens, W. P.


Hannon, Sir p. J. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harbord, Sir A.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G,
Storey, S.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Nall, Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M, F.


Higgs, W. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I


Holdsworth, H.
O'Connor, Sir Tarence J.
Taylor, C.S. (Eastbourne)


Hopkinson, A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Train, Sir J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Owen, Major G.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perkins, W. R. O.
Wakefield, W. W,


Hunter, T.
Petherick, M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T.W.H
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Jennings, R.
Radford, E. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Jones, Sir G.W.H.(S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Warrender, Sir V.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rankin, Sir R.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Keeling, E. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Kellett, Major E. O.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Karr, Colonel C.I.(Montrose)
Remer, J. R.
White, H. Graham


Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Kimball, L.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Leech, Sir J. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Levy, T.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lewis, O.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wragg, H.


Liddall, W. S.
Rowlands, G.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Lipson, D. L.
Royds, Admiral Sir P.M. R.
York, C.


Little, J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lloyd, G. W.
Salmon, Sir I.



Loftus, P. C.
Salt, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Samuel, M.R.A.
Mr. Munro and Major Sir James Edmondson.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sandys, E. D.



McEwen, Capt. J. H. F,
Seely, Sir H. M.



Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 12, line 3, leave out "four," and insert "three."— [Mr. W. S. Morrison.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power of occupier or owner to execute works.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 20, leave out "an approved type," and insert "the approved standard."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

755 P.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 31, to leave out from "of," to the end of the line, and to insert:
the approved standard, specifying with such particularity as the occupier or owner thinks reasonably necessary the nature and situation of the shelter, and specifying the number of persons that the shelter is to be constructed to accommodate.
This is linked up with the change to which I have referred in the form of the notice. It also, however, contains

a further provision of some importance. It not only substitutes "approved standard" for "approved type," but it provides that the factory inspector or other person giving notice to an employer, occupier or owner shall specify with such particularity as is reasonably necessary the nature and situation of the shelter and shall also specify the number of persons the shelter is to be constructed to accommodate. It is clear, on looking closely into the whole matter, that a shelter might be perfectly satisfactory in itself—the standard of structure might be perfectly satisfactory— but if you were providing for more persons than it was really suited to accommodate it would not, in fact, conform to a reasonable standard of shelter. It is in order to ensure that the shelter must not only be of a suitable type in itself, but adapted to accommodate the full number of people to be covered by the


notice requiring the occupier or owner to provide the shelter, that this change has been made.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Kirk wood: In the event of alterations being made in any private property, strengthening it and making it suitable for air shelters, will that be done at the expense wholly or partly at the expense of the Government, and after it is done, will it enhance the value of the property?

Mr. Speaker: I hardly think that this is the occasion to raise that point.

7.58p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: Apparently the owner of any factory, mine or commercial building who is going to give protection to his employés has to specify the number of persons that the shelter will hold. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to have a kind of Clause similar to those dealing with overcrowding in houses—-only so many in a room? One person may say that a shelter will hold 140, another may have a shelter of a similar size and say it will only hold 60. How are we to know the number of persons that the Government itself will certify the shelter will hold?

7.59p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: The code itself lays down standards of accommodation in regard to the number of square feet to be provided per person and the cubic capacity per person. This Clause requires the owner of a commercial building, when giving notice to the occupier of the building with regard to the shelter that he proposes to provide, to make quite clear, not only what type of shelter he is going to provide, but the number of people for whom it will be provided. Only in that way will it be possible for those concerned to satisfy themselves as to how far the standard of the code is being conformed with.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (4) and to insert:

(4) Where the occupier of factory premises or the owner of a commercial building holds any part of the premises or building on lease, he shall, before commencing any such works, serve upon his immediate landlord, or where he holds different parts of the premises or building under different landlords, on each of his immediate landlords, such a notice as is mentioned in Sub-section (2) of this Section, and each person upon whom such a notice or a copy thereof is served in satisfaction of an obligation imposed by this Sub-section, shall within seven days from the date of the service of the notice or copy himself serve a copy thereof upon his immediate landlord or landlords, if any:
Provided that where the occupier of factory premises has. under the said Sub-section (2) served a copy of a notice on any person, the service of that notice shall be treated as satisfying his obligation under this Sub-section to serve a notice on that person.
This is nothing but drafting. An Amendment accepted at a previous stage, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), is being adapted in order to bring it into line with a change to which I have referred more than once in the form of the code. Also, there was a certain overlap between the Amendment in question and certain provisions elsewhere with regard to the short-term factory occupier. Those drafting defects are put right by this Amendment.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Why has the right hon. Gentleman left out of this Clause the words "or mine"?

Sir J. Anderson: Reference to mines was never in this Clause.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why there was never a reference to mines?

Mr. G. Griffiths: It was in Clause 14.

Sir J. Anderson: I can explain that at once. This deals with the case of factory premises and commercial buildings where more than one employer may be concerned. That is a case which does not arise at all with regard to mines, and that is the reason why mines are excluded.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Power of factory inspector, mines inspector or local authority to require provision of air-raid shelter.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 13, line 29, to leave out from "of," to the second "the," in line 30, and to insert "the approved standard for all or any of."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Tinker: I rise to oppose this Amendment for the purpose of getting some information on a subject about which I have written to the Lord Privy Seal. This Amendment makes some alteration in the wording of the Clause, and altogether it makes a change in the Clause itself. In letters I have received from factory owners they have asked me what is their position when notices are served on them and they are not financially ready to provide the shelters which they are called upon to provide? They have asked me whether there is any way by which, under this Bill, certain financial measures can be given to relieve them temporarily. If they are not ready, and can satisfy the Government that they have not got the money, is there any way in which they can be excused for the time being or can get loans to get them over the difficulty? I agree that it is a rather difficult point but I would like to know the position of these people

8.4 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I am very glad to comply with the hon. Gentleman's request for information, but I am not at all certain whether the information that I can give will be satisfactory to him. The position is this: An owner has a definite obligation under this Bill. It is an obligation which he is called upon to discharge in exactly the same way as he is called upon to discharge other obligations in regard to the payment of rates, insurance premiums or anything else. If he is in financial difficulties and cannot conveniently find the money to discharge those obligations, I am afraid that the Bill does not provide any means to help him. The view which the Government took was that it was quite impracticable to find any way of helping out people in that position by way of loan from public funds. If the credit of an employer is unfortunately such that he cannot find the money required through the ordinary channels, then the provision of that money by way of loan would be tantamount to a grant.

Mr. Boulton: Would my right hon. Friend say, in the event of the man not having the money and not providing the shelter, what is the position of the owner and what is the position of the worker?

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid that I have not followed the right hon. Gentleman's

explanation at all. It is not a question of whether the answer is satisfactory or not; I am afraid I do not know what it means. Here the Clause imposes an obligation upon persons to do something. The something which it imposes on them to do involves a capital expenditure. I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman's comparison with rates and insurance premiums, which are periodical payments borne as part of the overhead charges of the undertakings. They bear no sort of relation—and I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman invites us to compare these things—with the obligation to provide at short notice an additional capital outlay. It is all very well for him to say that if the credit of the institution is not good enough to enable it to borrow that amount, then the Government cannot give a grant, but does he propose to leave it there? He cannot do that, surely. Does it means that if the institution cannot raise the money and the community cannot help it, then the workers in that particular place are to remain unprotected, or does it mean that the institution, which may have been a perfectly paying institution but for this new capital charge placed upon it, is to close down? I quite appreciate that there are many difficulties in it from either point of view, but I suggest that the Minister cannot leave it here. It is not enough for him to say, "He must raise the money." I think the House, and certainly the country, will want to know what is to happen then.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I cannot imagine any Socialist of the most advanced type standing at that Box and talking about the small capitalist in more callous terms than those which the right hon. Gentleman has just used. I know that he told us once that he was not a Conservative, or in fact a politician at all, and that he holds no political views. I cannot imagine what party would admit him after that speech, if he applied to it. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) would see that he did not get into the Conservative party, and we should be alarmed about the effect on our electoral fortunes if we admitted him after that speech. The point that was put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is a very practical point. There are a number of firms in this country who, during the


difficult periods of the past few years in the part of the country represented by my hon. Friend and myself, have just been able to keep their heads above water. They are carrying on perfectly reputable, useful businesses, some of them quite essential for the conduct of a war by this country. Some of these firms represent a very desirable dispersal of industry in the country. Many of these firms may be able to survive where one huge factory in a bombardment may have such a series of injuries as to be incapable of carrying on. It is desirable that these firms should not be thrown out of existence by the sudden demand being made on them by the Government in this matter.
I understand that the answer of the Minister is that if they cannot get credit in the ordinary market they will have to disappear. Speaking for a capitalist Government, that is the kind of sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman extended to the small capitalist confronted with this difficulty. I think the Minister ought to recognise that the demands in this Bill are entirely new demands to be made on any section of the community. Hitherto National Defence has been a matter of national taxation. For the first time in the Act of 1937 we made National Defence dependent for its financing upon something other than the national Exchequer when we threw part of the cost on the local authorities. Now we are proposing to throw this expense on those people who may not be able to secure the necessary capital to enable them to carry on. I can well understand the concern of the small firms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh when they are faced with this demand. Is it not possible for the Government to do something that will enable these persons to have, in suitable cases, some financial assistance or a loan which they could repay over a term of years, which would enable them to carry on? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can expect that on any side of the House we could be content with, the answer he has given.

8.13 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Could I raise another point of very vital importance to those of us who are Members for constituencies in the distressed areas? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are a large number of firms in the various distressed areas

who are working on credit and financed by the Special Areas Commissioner. If you take the trading estates of Treforest and Team Valley, there are a number of firms which will come under the provisions of this Bill. They have more than 50 employés, so that they must come under it. I think the Minister had not in his mind that these are Special Areas, when he said that if they have not got credit he was sorry but the Government could not help it. There is no doubt about their being bona fide firms, because they have been investigated thoroughly by the Special Commissioner's Department before any credit at all was given to them. The difficulty is that the mere fact that they are working on Special Areas grants and Commissioner's grants is evidence, not that they are not bona fide, but that they cannot get credit in the ordinary way. They have been encouraged to set up in the Special Areas and credit is provided for them because they do not come under the Minister's definition of being able to get credit in the ordinary way. They are building up a goodwill and business and performing a useful function, but if the whole weight of providing air-raid shelters is placed on them it may make all the difference between their going on and of losing what money they have, and having to close down. I am not exaggerating, they are working on the very narrowest of margins, some of those who are doing the best work are working on the narrowest of margins. The difficulty, of course, is that nearly all these firms are working in specially dangerous areas like the great munitions area on Tyneside, so that they will have to provide shelter, and provide effective shelter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must point out that the Debate is getting rather wide of the Amendment. The Amendment we are discussing is whether we should have "approved type" or "approved standard." This is really a very narrow Amendment.

Miss Wilkinson: I was coming to the question of "approved type." The Minister himself raised the question as to whether they will get the money for an approved type of shelter, and the question is whether they are going to get the money by an extra grant from the Special Areas Commissioner. If they do there are other areas which will complain of the


competition which will arise from this help. The Minister has not explained that, and I hope he will give us some idea as to how these firms will provide this shelter.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I have a good deal of misgiving as to the suggested alteration in the wording of the Clause. The Clause says that notice shall be given by a mines inspector, a factory inspector or a local authority. Originally, the Clause said:
to provide air-raid shelter of such approved type as may be specified in the notice.
In other words, it is the duty of the factory inspector in the one case, the mines inspector in another case, and the local authority in another case, to specify in the notice the exact nature of the requirements for the provision of air-raid shelter. The words "as may be specified in the notice" are to be struck out. Frankly, if I was a factory owner I should wonder what it all meant. Looking at the examples that are given in the code does not help us very much. I speak as one who knows something about the building industry, and I am wondering what, if I were an owner of a factory and knowing what I do about the industry, shall be expected to do. Under the original wording it had to be specified in the notice what I was expected to do, but under the new wording that is not so. It says of "the approved standard." What is the "approved standard"? It may be the code, or something in the code, but which of the examples in the code? It may be said "any in the code," but it might be that none of them would fit the circumstances of my particular factory or workshop. You would then have to do what I think you will ultimately have to do, and what was your original intention, that is, you will have to specify the exact type of shelter you want me to make in the factory. I honestly think the right hon. Gentleman will have to put back into the Clause words which will make it perfectly clear to the owner of a factory the exact nature of the work he is desired to do.
I do not think that the Clause, either with or without the words, will ever work. I do not think Factory Inspectors will be able to carry out with any degree of efficiency the work that is imposed on them by the Clause. They have not got the staff, and they will not be able to get

the staff. I cannot understand why a local authority is to be responsible for commercial buildings and the factory inspector for factory buildings. In all cases the local authority is the authority, and the factory inspector does not come in except for seeing that the machinery is all right and that sanitary accommodation is provided. I ask that more precise directions shall be given to the owner of a factory which will enable him to understand what is meant by "approved standard." It is not at all clear, and the suggested Amendment will make the Clause much worse and more difficult to understand.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister in presenting the Amendment said that it was only a drafting Amendment. But there is a question of principle involved, and the Clause will bear very heavily, may be of necessity, on small factory owners.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have explained before that that is out of order on this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: The Clause reads:
a notice in writing requiring him to provide air-raid shelter of such approved type as may be specified in the notice.
That is to be changed, and the words "such approved type as may be specified in the notice" are to be replaced by "the approved standard for all or any of." Let us consider the words as they appear in the Clause. Is it not possible that the inspector responsible for issuing the notice to a given factory might take into consideration, along with other factors, the financial position of the factory owner, when he was specifying the approved type of shelter in the notice? That is possible under the Clause as it is, but if the Amendment is accepted, then willy-nilly a type is imposed upon the factory owner whether or not he is capable of meeting the demand which that type imposes upon him. it is important to note that it is often said by hon. Members that this House has to look after the interests of the small man. I wish that hon. Members would make a very careful study of Marx's analysis of capitalist society.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now raising a subject which does not arise on the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Gallacher: I am drawing attention to the fact that this Amendment can strike a very heavy blow at small factory owners and can put them out of business. In reply to ray hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), the Minister was utterly callous in his attitude towards the small factory owners who will be affected by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should give some consideration to this matter and give us some explanation, and not tell us that this is simply a drafting Amendment. It is the sort of drafting Amendment that can draft crowds of small factory owners into the bankruptcy court. The Minister said that if they cannot get credit, they will get nothing from the Government—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member's remarks are not in order on this Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I will not pursue the matter further. I want only to draw attention to the fact that the Amendment is not simply a drafting Amendment, but one that may be very vital; and I want especially to draw attention to the fact that it would be a good thing if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, before discussing matters of this kind, would study the economic side, and then he would appreciate that he is being used in bringing forward this Amendment for the big monopolies that are anxious to wipe out the small factory owners. That is what the Amendment means.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is very difficult for me to reply to all the points that have been raised because of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with which, I may say, I profoundly agree. The Amendment does not raise the financial issues that have been put—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I do not know whether you recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when the Lord Privy Seal had moved the Amendment, he was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who raised a point about finding the consequent finance, basing that point on the argument that the Amendment increases the liability of the person on whom the liability is imposed. The Lord Privy Seal gave an answer in which he discussed that point, and no objection was taken; and

I discussed the right hon. Gentleman's answer. I hope your Ruling on the point of Order is not so narrow as to preclude the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from dealing with the points that have been raised in the Debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I had only just come into the Chair, I did not realise what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr Tinker)said. The hon. Member for Leigh raised a point that was out of order, but I did not stop him then. I cannot allow the discussion to go forward now, having informed the House that it is out of order to discuss these financial problems.

Miss Wilkinson: May I submit that the Lord Privy Seal, in his reply, raised an entirely new point that had not been discussed on the Clause, and that was as to who will provide the finance for these types of shelter with which the Amendment is concerned if the man cannot afford to do so himself. The Lord Privy Seal gave the Government policy, and we had to take it up, as it is a matter of importance, and affects a large number of our constituents. May I suggest that, as the Lord Privy Seal was allowed to say that and as, in point of fact, we have discussed it, you should allow the Minister to reply briefly to the points that have been raised following on the Minister's statement?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I am afraid I cannot. I allowed the Lord Privy Seal to reply to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) suggested that the matter has in point of fact been discussed, but I would remind her that two wrongs do not make a right. I suggest that if hon. Members want to raise the point again, they should do so on the Third Reading.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I will endeavour to reply to the points which I conceive to be relevant to the Amendment. The Amendment is a drafting Amendment and is really consequential on what has previously been agreed to. The reason for the substitution of the phrase "approved standard" for "approved type" has been fully explained in the past and agreed to by the Committee and the House as being a better way of framing the code. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) gave the


reason when he said that it is impossible to set out a number of types and to be sure that one has exhaustively described the types that would suit the necessities of any particular industry.

Mr. McEntee: The Clause as it is states:
such approved type as may be specified in the notice.
If it is specified, everybody knows what it is, but with the new wording of the Amendment, nobody knows what it is.

Mr. Morrison: This alteration is consequential upon what has already been agreed to, namely, that the words "approved standard" are preferable to "approved type." The other point about the phrase "all or any "has also been discussed. As the Bill stands, the notice that is issued must apply to providing shelter for all the persons; surely, it is sensible, if shelter already exists for some of those persons, that the notice shall apply only to the additional shelter that is required. That is all there is to the Amendment. I hope that hon. Members will agree that I was right in saying that it is consequential upon matters that have been discussed already. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West suggested that the factory inspectors could not discharge these duties which it is proposed to place upon them. I hold the contrary view, and so does my right hon. Friend, and I hope that when the hon. Member looks into this question he will feel that the difficulties have been somewhat exaggerated. In a great number of cases the occupiers of factories and mines and the owners of commercial buildings will, with the assistance of their own skilled staffs and of the men who work about the premises, and who well know as much about them as any factory inspector, be able to do the work themselves, and there will be no question of an inspector having to serve a notice. In the few cases where it may be necessary to serve a notice I think the factory inspectorate will be equipped with a sufficient staff to do this work.

Amendment agreed to.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 13, line 34, after "shall," to insert:
specify with such particularity as the inspector or authority thinks reasonably necessary the nature and situation of the shelter, and

shall specify the number of persons that the shelter is to be constructed to accommodate. (3) Any such notice shall also.
Here we are dealing with cases, which we hope will be very few in number, in which it is necessary to compel a recalcitrant owner to execute works by means of serving a notice upon him, and, of course, there is a penalty attaching to failure to comply with the notice. The point of the Amendment is this, that as we are providing for a penalty for failure to comply with it, the notice ought to be drawn up with sufficient particularity to let the man know exactly what is required of him; it should not be merely a general notice requiring him to provide shelter for so many men. I think the House will realise that as there are penal consequences an Amendment in these terms is really in the interests of justice.

8.38 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: Can I have an answer to the point which I raised previously, if it should now be in order? The Minister has laid it down that all these provisions as to the form of notice are necessary in view of the penal consequences which may follow a failure to comply with the notice, and surely, therefore, I may have an answer to the point which I outlined in a speech which was, unfortunately, sufficiently on the border-line of order for the Minister to be able to avoid replying to it then. I took the case of a man in one of the distressed areas who has been served with a notice threatening him with penalties and I asked the Minister where such a man could go for assistance if he found himself in the position of having to close down his works, which the Government had subsidised, and if he had been told, on approaching the Government, that they could not pay for the work to be executed.

Mr. R. Morgan: What I am particularly concerned about is what is to happen to the employés in factories or shops if the owners cannot afford to provide shelter. Will the onus of making provision for shelter fall upon the local authority if the owner cannot afford it?

8.40 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I think we must have some further information before this Clause can be allowed to pass, even with this Amendment. I am not opposing the Amendment as such, but the right hon.


Gentleman said its purpose was to compel a recalcitrant owner to do something reasonable, and of course the question will arise, What is reasonable? I once worked for a firm with whose circumstances I was well acquainted, and if a duty like this had been imposed on that firm it would definitely have been put out of business. If it had been a matter of finding £20 they could not have put up the money. We are told that the notice will state with particularity that the owner is to do certain things. There must be a great number of firms who will be quite unable to do this work that is going to be specified with particularity, and if they fail to do it then a fine will follow. That will not improve matters. To fine a man £50 when he has nothing does not improve his position. The inevitable result of all this will be that the man will go out of business and all the men employed by him will lose their jobs. The Clause does not allow the possibility, where the money cannot be found, of arrangements being made under which the owner and his employés might agree to do nothing and to take the risk rather than have the business shut down. Otherwise, the end of it will be that the men will lose their jobs, the employer will go out of business and no air-raid shelter will be provided for anyone. Surely the Government cannot think it is right to leave things like that.
I have a sense of justice and fair play, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some further consideration to this matter and to provide some outlet for employers who simply cannot do the work. It is no use saying to an employer, "If you cannot do it you will be fined £50," because that only makes the position worse for him. Why allow a Clause like this to go through compelling an employer to do something which everybody knows it is impossible for him to do? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow such a Clause to go forth from this House, because it will reflect upon our sense of decency and our ability to see things in reason. It will simply put out of business a large number of owners of factories and small commercial undertakings, and throw out of work a considerable number of men who may or may not find employment with some other firm which is sufficiently wealthy to provide air-raid shelter.

Mr. Dodd: This Amendment provides that when notice to do this work is served upon an owner it will specify with particularity the work which he is required to undertake, and that places upon the individual concerned a very definite responsibility. There will be nothing vague about the notice. I think there is a very great deal in the case put up by the Socialist defenders of the small capitalists on the other side of the House, and I feel that the difficulties which will arise will be much more widespread than the Minister realises. There arc in this country a vast number of concerns which are always very close to the limit of their finances. We are imposing penalties on a man for not undertaking work which he may find it impossible for him to do. In that case what is to happen to the people he is employing? Not only does the owner find himself unable to undertake the work, but he is faced with a financial penalty which only makes his position still more grave. In actual fact it may cause the condition to arise, in certain parts of the country, that works are definitely closed down not only because they cannot undertake the work, but because there is a penalty for not undertaking the work. This is an extremely important matter.
There is another point which I raised with the Lord Privy Seal at an earlier stage of the Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that his Department would not look upon this matter too stringently and he hoped that the banks would be recommended to make finance available as far as they could. I imagine that the net result is that the banks have said, "This is a responsibility of the Government," and that they have thrust it back upon the Government. Here are the small traders, many of whom render a very useful service, faced with a position in which, because they have not the necessary finance to undertake the work, may have the people whom they employ either thrown out of work or who will suffer from having no protection if air raids take place.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: The position is very serious. Hon. Members have been speaking of the small employers in distressed areas and I would draw attention to that matter as well. There is a distressed area


in my division. The mines are closed down, but a number of small men have opened small enterprises and have been able to engage a number of men, to whom it has been a blessing because of the employment. I feel sure that these small employers are in no position to carry out any specifications particularised in the way asked in the Bill, and it means, if they are not able to carry them out, that they will be liable to a fine of £100 and of £50 for each day on which they fail to complete a scheme. It means simply that the men who have started these small enterprises and are engaging a number of men in a small way, are finished and out of business and that the men they have been employing are again to be without hope. I am just as much concerned about the areas that are not distressed. We have urged the Government for a long time to do something about the location of industry, and while we all welcome trading estates in the distressed areas we must recognise that they have an effect on industries in areas that are not distressed. The Government cannot allow this matter to rest where it is.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: The case that small men will be put out of business has been grossly exaggerated. I am surprised at hon. Members opposite taking that view. They seem to have altogether forgotten the position of the workers. To get a true conception of the matter we have to ask what the Bill will cost the employers.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Do you know?

Mr. Higgs: I suppose, taking it all into account, that it would cost about 1 per cent, or one-half per cent, of their capital. Air-raid shelters would probably cost anything from 14s. to £3 per person, depending upon the size of the land on which they are to be erected. It takes about £200 to £300 of capital per person employed, and therefore 1 per cent, is not going to put people out of business. The operation of the Factory Acts costs the employer a sum far greater than the cost of this Bill, by the provision of various fences and safety precautions that he has to supply, as well as dust-extracting fans and so on. The cost of insurance is greater than the cost of the Bill will be. The insurance required by the employer is probably in the neighbourhood of £1 or £1 10s. per week—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is giving certain illustrations but he is going a long way from the Clause.

Mr. Higgs: I accept your Ruling, Sir, but I have practically said all I had to say, and I conclude by saying that the working of the Bill will not put any sound firm out of business.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I do not accept the figures that have been given, but I shall not risk coming under the ban of your Ruling by following the line of argument of the hon. Member. In point of fact, the hon. Member could not prove for one moment that his figures could be substantiated, because of the differing conditions applying to different firms with differing ability to meet the demands made upon them.

Mr. Higgs: I have built air-raid shelters.

Mr. Messer: You may have done so, but I doubt very much whether you have built the air-raid shelters that will be specified in such particularity as apparently will be reasonable to the inspector or the authority.

Mr. McCorquodale: It is extremely unlikely that you will get a case of more than £4 per person. That will probably be the maximum that will be brought about by this Bill.

Mr. Messer: When hon. Members produce such figures it shows that they have not the due sense of proportion to understand that a wealthy company may easily agree to paying £3 per head of its employés, while an individual employer, a small man, may not be able to pay the same amount. It is clear that there is a difference and I want to point out that we shall find ourselves in the illogical position of placing what is in fact a national responsibility upon private shoulders. War is a national responsibility and so ought to be the defence of the people. We should not be dependent on the ability of a firm to carry out the law as it will be when this Bill becomes an Act, with the alternative of going out of business. An expense of 1 per cent, does not mean very much to a firm which has reserves—I am conceding the 1 per cent.—but that is not true of the small business. Those small businesses will be compelled by law to defend the people that the Government should defend and that is the whole point of the proposition of the Amendment.
One can say that the particular geographical position of one firm will make its financial liability different from that of another firm. However it might be possible logically to defend the obligation of an employer to protect his workpeople during an emergency, it could not be contended for a moment with any justice that it is right for A to be called upon to pay more than B. Assuming it to be true that the maximum cost is £3 per head—

Mr. McCorquodale: Four pounds.

Mr. Messer: The hon. Member sees how moderate I am. I accept the figure of £4. Assuming that to be the maximum which would have to be paid by a small man, it is obviously wrong if a big firm can get away with £2, The logical thing is obviously that the Government should consider to what extent they are prepared to undertake what is their responsibility in a national emergency. Having got us into a fix, they should protect us when we are in it.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it be in order for me to move a manuscript Amendment to the Amendment of the Minister? I consider it very important that those of us who are interested especially in the more hard-hit areas of the country to do what is possible to protect the small people who are likely to be hard hit by this Clause. I would move, if it were in order, the folowing Amendment to the Amendment: In line 2, after "necessary," to insert:"(provided it is within the means of the small employers affected)." I consider that this would be only fair on the part of the Minister and the Government, because it immediately raises the question of what is to be done if they cannot meet the obligation. I hear some murmurings going round that the wording is not verygood—

Mr. McEntee: It may be all right to enable the employer to get out of his liability, but it does not provide the necessary shelter for the workers in the factory.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had better tell the hon. Member straight away that I should not select that Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I am saying that, if that Amendment were carried, the question would come up, who is going to take the responsibility for providing shelters when

the small employer is not in a position to do it? I suggest this Amendment in order to direct attention to what is actually happening in connection with this problem. It is all very well to say that it is only one per cent, of the capital, but, if the party on this side of the House gets the opportunity and suggests a capital levy of even only one per cent. on the big firms, we shall hear a squeal from the hon. Member and those associated with him, letting us know whether or not one per cent, is a lot. Where one per cent, might not inflict a fatal injury on a big company, it could quite easily be fatal to some of the smaller firms at a particular moment when trade was very bad and their situation very difficult.
The Minister, therefore, has to face up to this question. If the inspector or the local authority lays down the conditions for a small employer with such particularity as is thought reasonably necessary, and that small employer is not able to meet them, what is going to be the answer of the Minister? We hive seen many small men ruthlessly put out of business. Some areas of this country are going to be very seriously affected by the Clause, and many more people will be put out of business if this Amendment goes through. I would ask the Minister to say whether this Amendment is for the purpose of ensuring protection for the employés of small employers, or whether it is for the purpose of putting the small employer out of business. I would like an answer to that question, because it is the question that arises as a consequence of this Amendment.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not think the time that the House has spent on this matter has been misspent, because clearly this is a very important Clause, and the Amendment will increase some of the difficulties that will confront those persons with whom the Clause deals. On one of the new Clauses this afternoon, both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite drew attention to the drastic nature of the Clause, and this also is a very drastic Clause, because the notices with which it deals are served on the persons concerned, and, as far as I can see, there is no appeal from the notice. The works specified in the notice have to be carried out, and very heavy penalties are imposed. There is a maximum fine of £100 for the offence,


and the court can make an order specifying a reasonable number of days within which the order shall be complied with, after which there is a continuing penalty of £50 a day as a maximum. That is quite right: no one on this side of the House will complain about the size of the penalty if we can be assured that the persons concerned have a reasonable chance of meeting the provisions of the Clause.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) asked what was going to happen to the employés of the firm. Clearly, if the firm is closed down, the employés will have to look somewhere else for employment. That is the effect on the employés, and the inspector or the local authority will therefore be put in the position, in a large number of cases, of determining whether the firm will be able to carry on or not. I can see no objection to the form of words proposed by the Minister, provided that some arrangement can be made for firms who are genuinely desirous of providing accommodation for their workmen and are only prevented from doing so by the difficulty of financing the arrangements at the moment.
In view of the concessions that have been made to private enterprise elsewhere in the Bill, I can see no reason why the Government themselves should not be responsible in suitable cases for financing persons who have been called upon to deal with their works or commercial buildings under this Clause, and who find themselves financially unable to do so. In spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), from the views that have been expressed by other hon. Members on this side and from the knowledge that some of us here have of the difficulties in our own constituencies we feel that there will be firms on whom this additional capital charge will press very heavily, and which may easily, in the words of the Lord Privy Seal, put them out of business altogether. We do. not think that that should be the result of this Clause, and we hope that the Government will be able to do something to meet us.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Mr. W. S. Morrison rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House. He has already spoken once.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I am obliged to you. Sir. With the leave of the House, I would say that with the object of this Amendment I think no hon. Member could disagree. With regard to what has been said, I should clearly be out of order if I were to propose, or even to discuss, further financial arrangements outside the terms of the Resolution.

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. You have not called us to order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on any of the speeches we have made asking what the Government propose to do in regard to the financial provisions. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he cannot reply because he would be out of order?

Mr. McEntee: Did not the Minister himself, in his previous speech, say that the purpose of this Amendment was to compel recalcitrant owners to do this work, and is it not legitimate, therefore, to ask what happens if they do not?

Mr. Morrison: I was not refusing to reply to arguments which are in order, but I was stating how far, in my own opinion, I should go.

Miss Wilkinson: It is not a question of your opinion, but of Mr. Deputy-Speaker's.

Mr, Morrison: Yes, and I have no doubt Mr. Deputy-Speaker would pull me up if I attempted to do that. Let us examine how this Amendment appears when fastened on to this salutary provision in the Clause. I think there has been a great deal of exaggeration of the evils and woes which are apprehended. When we hear about the very small employers whose woes are so graphically painted by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I wonder whether he remembers that to qualify for any sympathy at all a man must be a bloated capitalist employing 50men. The second point I would ask hon. Members to remember is that, although we have been discussing this as if it were a capital charge and with that extreme tenderness for any trenching upon capital that hon. Members opposite always display, in a great number of cases these charges will be met out of revenue as they come along; and when the grant is taken into account it is fair to say that the total charge on any firm will not exceed one week's wages.

Mr. McEntee: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the wages are £4 per man? In many cases they are not 36s. per man.

Mr. Morrison: I am giving a conservative estimate and taking account of the Government grant. In cases that I have considered the cost will not exceed one week's wages. Many firms in this country are not hovering so near the brink of ruin that one week's wages will put them out of business. In some cases sympathetic consideration will have to be given. On the general principle, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 14, line 36, leave out Subsection (7), and insert:
(7) Where a notice is served under this Section on the occupier of factory premises or the owner of a commercial building and the occupier or owner holds any part of the premises or building on lease, he shall within 14 days from the date of the service of the notice on him serve a copy thereof upon his immediate landlord or where he holds different parts of the premises or building under different landlords, on each of his immediate landlords, and each person upon whom a copy of such a notice is served in satisfaction of an obligation imposed by this Sub-section shall within seven days from the date of the service of the copy on him himself serve a copy upon his immediate landlord or landlords, if any;
Provided that where the occupier of factory premises has under Sub-section (5) of this Section served a copy of a notice on a person the service of the copy shall be treated as satisfying his obligation under this Sub-section to serve a copy on that person.

In page 15, line 5, leave out from "shelter," to the end of line 6.

In line 11, leave out "for those persons."

In line 12, leave out from "shelter," to the end of Clause—[Sir J. Anderson.']

CLAUSE 16.—(Appeals.)

9.13 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 15, line 29, to leave out "shelter is not of the approved type," and insert
proposals or requirements of the notice are not appropriate, or are not those.
This Amendment is partly consequential, following upon the substitution of "approved shelter" for "approved type," and it also enlarges the opportunity of persons concerned to appeal against what is proposed. The original

provision as to appeals was in narrower terms. The wider terms are thought to be desirable in order that the interest of occupiers of particular parts of a building may be protected. For example, it may be of real importance that an occupier on the top storey of a large commercial building should be in a position to represent that the shelter proposed to be provided in the basement would not be satisfactory from the point of view of his employés because, by the time his employés had got to the shelter, it would already be filled by employés in the intermediate floors. I submit that the Amendment is an improvement.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It is clear that this is really more than a drafting Amendment, especially when it is read in conjunction with the Amendments made to Clause 15. When we were suggesting one of the Amendments it was suggested that I should find here grounds of appeal. It is quite true that there are grounds of appeal here, but the words as now introduced do not cover the points we were discussing. They do not cover the position when it is beyond the financial ability of the firm to carry out the requirements. The wider form of words employed here assists a larger number of people to secure protection, and we see no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17—(Provisions as to factory premises occupied under short leases.)

9.16 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 17, line 16, at the end, to insert:
Where the air-raid shelter which has been provided in pursuance of the notice provides a greater degree of protection or accommodation than is contemplated by the code, no greater expense shall be deemed for the purposes of this sub-section to have been reasonably incurred in executing the works for the purpose of providing the shelter than would have been so incurred if that greater degree of protection or accommodation had not been provided.
The terms are, what I said previously in regard to the scope of the provision with reference to the standard shelter, the standard laid down as the minimum. The effect of the Amendment is that where the occupier of factory premises held under a short lease has chosen to provide a shelter going beyond the minimum standard laid down by the code the landlord who, on termination of the lease,


has to assume liability for a proportion of the cost has not to pay for the shelter in excess of the standard. It seemed to me and my advisers only right that that should be provided. If a shelter in excess of the approved standard is provided with the approval of the Minister, and he considers that it is reasonable in the circumstances, the Minister pays grant in respect of the approved standard, but it is not thought right that the second party should be required to pay for the extra protection which the first party thought fit to provide. That is entirely consistent with the general structure of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18—(Special provisions as to commercial buildings when owner does not occupy the whole building.)

9.19 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 18, line 15, after "charge," to insert:
shall have priority over all other encumbrances on that estate or interest, except charges arising under any enactment authorising a charge for the recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority and charges created under any enactment authorising advances of public money and.
This is a drafting Amendment to bring the provisions about charging in Clause 18 into line with the corresponding provisions in Sub-section (4) of Clause 17. It happened that the two sets of provisions were drawn at different times and different wording was employed. It is though desirable, as a matter of sound drafting, to employ the same form of words to convey the same meaning in the two cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 16, at the end, insert:
and the person in whose favour the charge is created shall, for the purpose of enforcing it, have the same powers and remedies under the Law of Property Act, 1925, and otherwise, as he would have if he were a mortgagee by deed having powers of sale and lease and of appointing a receiver."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 18, line 36, to leave out "type specified in," and to insert "approved standard in pursuance of."

This Amendment is consequential on the adoption of the approved standard.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 20, line 3, to leave out "type specified -in," and to insert "approved standard in pursuance of."
This Amendment is consequential on the substitution of "approved standard" for "approved type."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 10, leave out "shelter of the type specified in the notice," and insert "the shelter."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 20, line 17, at the end, to insert:
Where air-raid shelter which has been provided in pursuance of the notice provides a greater degree of protection or accommodation than is contemplated by the code, no greater expense shall be deemed for the purposes of this Sub-section to have been reasonably incurred in executing the works for the purpose of providing the shelter than would have been so incurred if that greater degree of protection or accommodation had not been provided.
This Clause deals with precisely the same point as the one with which the House has already dealt—Clause 17, page 17, line 16. In that case it was a question of the proportion of cost which the short-term factory occupier could pass on. Here it is a question of the proportion of cost which the owner of commercial buildings can pass on where a shelter going beyond the approved standard has been provided.

Amendment agreed to

Further Amendments made:

In page 21, line 3, leave out from beginning to "in," in line 4, and insert "the owner had provided shelter of the approved standard."

In page 21, line 5, leave out "the owner," and insert "him."

In page 21, line 7, leave out "shelter of the type specified therein," and insert "and the said sums were expenses under that notice."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 19—(Contributions in respect of works commenced before the passing of this Act.)

Amendments made:

In page 21, line 15, leave out "an approved type," and insert "the approved standard."

In page 21, line 39, leave out "his," and insert "its."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 21—(Exchequer grants in respect of provision of air-raid shelter in factory premises, mines, commercial buildings, etc.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 23, line 9, after "college," to insert "university."
The House has already agreed that colleges should be excluded from the definition of "commercial building" in Clause 80, and it has been pointed out that universities which serve the purposes of colleges are really for this purpose exactly the same as colleges, and that it is logical and right that they should be similarly treated.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Training of employés.)

Amendment made: In page 24, line 10, leave out "mine or," and insert "in or about the mine or in the."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 25.—(Erection of skelters provided by the Crown.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 26, line 13, at the end, to insert "water."
This Amendment gives effect to a promise made during the Committee stage that water undertakings should be placed in the same position as gas or electricity undertakings to which the Sub-section already applies.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 26, line 14, after "not," to insert "unless they have been guilty of negligence."
This is one of several Amendments designed to meet a point that was taken during the Committee stage. The purpose of inserting these words is to restore any rights that an employé of a statutory undertaking might have under the Employers' Liability Act or the common law in a case where he suffered injury on account of the negligence of the undertaker.

Mr. Ede: It will be within the recollection of the House that when we were in Committee this Amendment was moved in a very short speech and accepted in another very short speech by the Minister, and at that time I expressed my fears as to the width of the indemnity that had been given to the public utility under-

takers. I do not want to anticipate the discussion which will take place on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), but in regard to this Amendment clearly public utility undertakers ought not to be excused in any event from the consequences of their own negligence, no matter in what circumstances that negligence may have shown itself. On that narrow issue I think the words submitted by the right hon. Gentleman are an improvement on the original words, and do impose on the public utility undertakers some liabilities from which their supporters in this House wrongly tried to relieve them.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 26, line 15, to leave out "compensation or."
This Amendment is designed to supplement the effect of the Amendment that has just been passed. It is suggested that the effect of leaving out: the words "compensation or" would be to preserve any rights which the employés of public utility undertakings might have under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Amendment agreed to.

9.30 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I beg to move, in page 26, line 19, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be in derogation of any provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925
This Amendment is designed to make certain that the rights of employés under the Workmen's Compensation Act are maintained. I am quite aware that it is the opinion of the Lord Privy Seal that, owing to the Amendments he has just moved, and which have just been passed, the rights of workers under the Workmen's Compensation Act are in fact maintained, but I would point out that the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, subject as it has been to interpretation by numerous legal decisions, is an extremely complicated piece of legislation. I feel quite sure that the Lord Privy Seal will agree with me that it is extremely desirable that there should be no doubt whatsoever that all the rights of workers under the Workmen's Compensation Act are maintained. The only possible objection I can see to this Amendment is that it is not necessary. If it is not necessary, it only adds the words on the Order Paper, amounting to


one line and a half. I speak in this matter with a certain amount of experience in the courts as an expert witness in workmen's compensation, and I know how extraordinarily complicated this legislation is. I appeal to the Lord Privy Seal to accept this Amendment and thus to make quite sure, even if there is a little uncertainty about its being necessary, that all the rights of workers are maintained.

9.33 P.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to second the Amendment.
We are not certain that merely by deleting the words "compensation or" the right hon. Gentleman has protected all the rights that might come to persons under the Workmen's Compensation Act. If a man is fatally injured, and his widow and children have claims against the employers, are those claims rightly described as compensation, or are they damages? The workers of the country have had the unfortunate experience of finding the Workmen's Compensation Act very closely denned by a number of very meticulous legal decisions on the precise wording of the Act, and the whole House would be very disappointed to find that, by inserting the Amendment which was put in the Bill in Committee, we had deprived some widow or orphan of a sum of money that was legally due to them on the death of the workman who had been employed. A man is sent on a job, and it is no concern of his how the job was created. If the man is fatally injured owing to some misdeed on the part of the person who fixed the shelter, or the local authority who advised the person how to fix the shelter that is provided under this Clause, that is no concern of the workman. He is ordered to do the job, and if, arising out of that order, he or his dependants suffer a disability which is regarded as suitable for monetary recognition under the ordinary law as laid down in the Act, we do not think that the peculiar circumstances of the case should deprive him of his rights. We move the Amendment to make that certain and in order that there shall be no doubt in the mind of any judge who has to consider this Clause, or any lawyer who has to advise a trade union or an insurance company upon its effect, that the Workmen's Compensation Act is taken entirely out of the exemption granted by this Sub-section.

9.36 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: When I put on the Paper the Amendment which has already been accepted, I was under the impression, confirmed by the advice then tendered to me, that those words by themselves would suffice to ensure that the rights of a workman under the Workmen's Compensations Act, or the Employers' Liability Act or at common law, would remain unaffected. I have since, however, been advised that there may conceivably be some lingering doubt in the matter, and in those circumstances, and in the light of the further advice which I have received, I propose to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: As we attach great importance to this matter may I be allowed to thank the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely for accepting the Amendment?

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32—(Duty of public utility undertakers to make reports.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 31, line 8, to leave out "three months" and to insert "one month."
This Amendment brings the time within which a public utility undertaker has to report on the arrangements which he has been making about training into line with a similar obligation on industry in Clause 22. It must have been by inadvertance that different periods were provided for in these two cases.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 34—(General grant in respect of expenses in providing shelter for employés.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 32, line 42, after "purpose," to insert:
being measures for the provision of shelter of the approved standard.
This is a drafting Amendment. These words, by inadvertance, were originally inserted in the wrong place and that mistake has been corrected. The effect of the Amendment is self-evident.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 45.—(Provisions as to practice of dimming lights.)

Amendments made:

In page 41, line 27, leave out "his," and insert "the."

In line 34, after "in," insert "respect of,"—[Sir J. Anderson.']

CLAUSE 52—(Evacuation of civil population.)

9.39 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, in page 47, line 32, at the end, to insert:

"(3) The Minister, if it appears to him that, in view of the imminence or existence of an emergency involving the possibility of hostile attack, it is expedient so to do, may make regulations for the purpose of securing accommodation for any persons transferred under any such plan as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, and without prejudice to the generality of the preceding words, any such regulations may—
(a) provide for occupiers of premises being required to furnish in the premises such accommodation as may be specified in the requirement;
(b) declare the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, responsibility shall be assumed by occupiers of premises for the feeding and care of any children accommodated therein under the regulations;
(c) authorise the imposition, on summary conviction, of penalties for failure to comply with any requirements imposed by or under the regulations."

This Amendment carries out a pledge which was given after a Debate of some length during the Committee stage, and is self-explanatory.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, as as Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out from "Minister," to the end of line 2, and to insert:
within three months after the passing of this Act shall.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, we debated this matter at some length during the Committee stage and he has gone some way towards meeting the points which were then advanced. I understand that what he proposes to do under this Amendment, is to invite associations of local authorities who are concerned with receiving evacuated persons, to meet him and consider the Regulations which he proposes to make.

Mr. Elliot: Both receiving and despatching authorities.

Mr. Ede: I am more concerned, and I think the Amendment is more concerned with the receiving authorities. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am other than grateful for

the extent to which he has met us if I suggest that he ought to obey the Scriptural injunction:
Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
The right hon. Gentleman said as long ago as last December, at a conference at which I was present, that the problems of the receiving authorities were ten times as great as those of the evacuating authorities. After due consideration I think that is not an over-estimate of the proportionate difficulties of the respective classes of authorities. While every one is gratified at the response which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the census of accommodation in the receiving areas, those of us who have to deal with the receiving areas are perturbed at the difficulty of ensuring that the promised accommodation shall be available if it is ever required. We are also concerned about whether people will then be prepared to accept the conditions laid down by the Minister. The Minister now indicates in this Amendment the kind of regulations that he will make, in the phrase
in view of the imminence or existence of an emergency involving the possibility of hostile attack.
He thus indicates the time at which the regulations that will be made, and, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the specific points which they will cover. The local authorities concerned are anxious to be able to make these specific conditions known in the areas to which persons are to be evacuated. We think we shall get the best response from public opinion if we are able to tell the public specifically what is required of them and the penalties which may be imposed on those who do not comply with the Minister's requirements. I think it is especially necessary that we should be able to make plain exactly what compulsory powers we shall be armed with, as agents of the Minister, when the time comes for evacuation. I was on Saturday in a certain small town, near which resides a Duke, and he had announced that, in no circumstances, would he have any one billeted on him. He is not a Duke who takes any great part in public affairs. But that kind of thing is having its effect on other peoples in the district who say:" If the Duke can get out of it, why should I be expected to put up with the inconveniences that may result?" We want to be able to say in


a case like that "Very well, you may rest assured that when the time comes, no one will be able to escape from carrying out this national duty merely because of personal prejudices and dislikes, and that will apply to all persons, whatever their social status"
There may be grounds of escape on such things as the age or infirmity of the occupier of the premises or inability to perform some of the duties that may be required, but certainly social status and local influence will not be among the things that will entitle a person to exemption. We are seriously concerned as to what might have happened last September if evacuation had proceeded one stage farther than that which it in fact reached. Over the wireless people had been informed in the areas to be evacuated of the provision they were to make for the children who were to be evacuated and the kind of things that were to be provided for them, and the people in the receiving districts had been warned of what they would have to do if the children were sent out and had to be billeted, and we had every reason to believe that a very great effort would be made on the part of a great many people to do the very best possible under the circumstances, but in practically every part of the country that was scheduled as a receiving area difficulties arose because of persons who, of their own volition, had moved out and had gone to those receiving areas and, after accommodation had been promised to the local authority had, by means of money payments or cajolery, persuaded the persons who had undertaken to have accommodation available for the local authority to let them have that accommodation for themselves.
I detailed to the House, in Committee, some of the experiences that I had in making inquiries a few days and weeks after the crisis of last September and the difficulties that we foresaw arising. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that one can imagine few worse plights than that of the officer of a local authority having a troop of children at his heels, going along the village street, when the children have been evacuated in circumstances that maybe in themselves have tended to unnerve the children, and being met, at some house in which he expected to find billets for two or three of the children, with the statement that

since the accommodation had been promised to the local authority someone else had been admitted and the accommodation was not then available. My experience of billeting troops was that whenever one went around billeting it was always raining hard, and if you add rain and the discomforts attendant on that to the other circumstances which I have just detailed, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that very difficult circumstances indeed in securing the proper billeting of the children might arise. Therefore, we think that to avoid all that kind of difficulty and to make the position quite certain in the receiving areas, the right hon. Gentleman should publish now the regulations that he proposes to make.
I understand, from some conversations that have taken place, that his objection to that course is that just when the moment comes, after agreeing the regulations with the local authorities, he might want to alter them, and that then there would be two sets of regulations known to the public—one that had been previously known and the revised set of regulations which he would find it necessary to publish at the time of the actual emergency. I am bound to say that 1view with very considerable misgiving the administration of a Government Department that cannot think ahead better than that. After all, this is a matter in which, unless the details are sound, the greatest possible confusion may arise and the greatest amount of discomfort and possibly disease and suffering be caused. I should have thought that after his negotiations with the local authorities, it would have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to feel that he had been able to devise a set of regulations in general terms that he could safely publish and that he could expect to work when the time came. Quite frankly, I am bound to say, on behalf of the receiving authorities—

Mr. Elliot: Officially?

Mr. Ede: We had a discussion on the matter this morning. We had a special meeting of the County Councils Association Air-Raid Precautions Committee this morning to discuss this Clause in particular, and what I am going to say now is in a resolution that was put at that meeting. It will undoubtedly reach


the right hon. Gentleman, if not tomorrow, certainly the day after. I am authorised to say, on behalf of that committee, which had negotiations with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, that we can see no reason why these regulations should not now be prepared and published, on the understanding always that in a state of emergency the man on the spot will often have to act, no matter how recent the regulations are that have been published by the Minister. I am sure that in the practical affairs of an emergency there will always arise some small point of detail that the man on the spot will have to deal with. Even if the right hon. Gentleman had published his regulations that very afternoon, I can foresee circumstances arising in one or other of the localities where it would be necessary even then for the man on the spot to act and to say, "In view of the emergency, I am going to take this particular action."
What we are concerned about is letting our public know well beforehand exactly what the position will be that will confront them. I am one of those who believe that you do no harm in this matter by taking the public well into your confidence. I have urged on the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal more than once that I wish he would publish the Defence of the Realm Act which is to supersede his Civil Defence Measure when the time comes, because I believe the temper of this country is such that it would welcome the knowledge of the exact things that will be required of it when the emergency arises. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to publish his regulations and make them known to the general public only when the emergency actually arises, I can see all sorts of doubts and difficulties then arising that need never arise if the right hon. Gentleman will only take his courage in both hands and make these matters public now. The point of this Amendment is to secure reasonably immediate knowledge for the public who will be affected. We suggest that, instead of holding up the making of these regulations until the time when the emergency actually arises, he should within the next three months make these regulations, so that the public in the receiving areas shall know exactly what is required of them and shall be able to

prepare themselves, local authorities and individuals alike, for the duties that the right hon. Gentleman will then place upon them.
This Amendment, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise, is moved in no spirit of hostility to his Amendment. We desire to ensure that his Amendment, for which we thank him, shall be made really and thoroughly effective, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that if his intentions are to be made known over the wide sweep of country over which he proposes to evacuate these children and other persons, it is desirable that his exact wishes and the exact powers that the local authorities will have should be made public as soon as possible.

9.55 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I want to support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and to reinforce what I believe is true, that the more the public is taken into the confidence of the Government with regard to the arrangements which will be made at the time of an emergency, the better those arrangements are likely to work. One of the chief general criticisms that I have to make on our organisation is that not sufficient information has been given to the public, and with regard to this matter of evacuation it is particularly necessary that information should be given as fully and as completely as possible. If the Minister publishes the regulations it is obvious that there may have to be an alteration at a time of an actual emergency—I concede that at once—but they will not be so entirely dissimilar as to cause any confusion, and it will be a difference of detail rather than of principle. I believe that, if the regulations are published and are discussed in the reception areas, it will enable the Government to get a large amount of information about the details of evacuation and the facilities available, many, of which they do not themselves yet realise and know of. It will enable them to get information, of a kind which will be extremely valuable at the time of an emergency, which otherwise they will not get.
My own experience of the reception areas is not as extensive as that of my hon. Friend. I have no personal connection with the County Councils Association and I cannot speak from the administrative point of view, but what I know of the reception areas leads me to think


that the work in connection with evacuation, if it falls to be carried out, will be done sometimes with enthusiasm and always with great willingness to serve the country. There will be a few exceptional cases of people who are pernickety and will put obstacles in the way of carrying out what is their obvious duty, but, in the case of those people, the publication of the regulations will have the very salutary effect of bringing them up against their duties and responsibilities as denned by the Minister. In the case of those whose only desire is to fulfil their duties and responsibilities to the utmost of their capacity, the publication of the regulations will give them a fuller and completer understanding of what they may be expected to do and will result in the Minister receiving a considerable number of suggestions of value to him in the work of evacuation. After the publication is will probably be found, as the result of the suggestions that he will get, that it will be possible to make adaptations and to improve the conditions of evacuation. It will certainly enable him to be certain of what is going to happen in the different areas, and it will enable that difficult problem to be definitely settled of how the claims of the public arrangements with regard to children versus the private arrangements are to be adjusted. The competing claims are already causing difficulty in certain country areas and, when the regulations are published, it will enable people to understand better what their duties are.
I asked the Lord Privy Seal in a question to underline the fact that the Government's arrangements for evacuation apply to all school children, to all women with children under five and to all expectant mothers, because that was not understood previously. I am not sure that it is even now fully understood in the country that there is no class distinction of any kind at all. It is extremely desirable that that should be known, and that the implications of it should be known, that is to say, that parents of children who do not send their children to elementary schools or to schools with which normal arrangements will be made by the Minister to evacuate the school population, have an equal right to participate in the scheme of evacuation with others. That applies also to women with children under five, of whatever social class, and to expectant mothers.
I believe that the publication of the regulations after three months would help to clear up a large number of personal difficulties of that kind and would give the Minister a great deal of very valuable information which he will be able to use in an emergency. In fact, the publication of the regulations would be, as it were, a kind of rehearsal of the arrangements and would, as the result of the information that he got, enable the Minister in time of emergency to make regulations which will be of a more precise and definite kind than could possibly be the case otherwise, and regulations more able to be carried out with complete exactitude. It will be necessary for arrangements for evacuation to be made on a very much more extensive scale than anything the Government are contemplating and, if they make regulations now and get in from the reception areas a great deal of information about the precise conditions in each area, they will be in a very much better position, at a time of grave emergency, when arrangements will have to be made for the evacuation of greater numbers than are at present contemplated, to make the emergency arrangements for that greater evacuation which will be superimposed on the evacuation of school children and other classes at present contemplated. I think the Amendment will facilitate the work of evacuation and help in every possible way and can in no sense at all be thought to be in conflict with the Government's point of view.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: There is not much that divides us either on the Amendment or on the Amendment to the Amendment. I think we all agree that the utmost possible collaboration on the schemes for evacuation should be continually in progress, that the utmost possible information should be communicated to the localities, and that the utmost possible details should be collected from the localities. All that is actively in progress at present. It is not a matter that depends upon the regulations. It depends on such matters as railway time-tables, the numbers of persons to be sent to the areas, the amount of accommodation and the amount of water and of shelter available in those areas. All that is being accurately collected and redistributed, and will be actively collected and redistributed in the months immediately to come.


Where we differ a little is that hon. Members opposite think this process will be very greatly facilitated by the making of the regulations. I doubt that, but I do not close my mind to it at all. We are now passing a Clause which will enable me and my Department to get into conference with the local authorities upon these draft regulations, and I gave an undertaking to the Committee, which I repeat now to the House, that I will, as soon as the Bill reaches the Statute Book, get into communication with representatives of local authorities, both despatching and receiving authorities, for the immediate drafting of those regulations.
I was a little lost when I saw so definite an Amendment that the regulations should be made within three months, but my mind was somewhat cleared by the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), who seemed to contemplate much more the communication as widely as possible of draft regulations. I think it would be premature for us now to pass a mandatory Motion that the regulations must be made within three months. I have here letters from the County Councils Association, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association, in which they all say they will be pleased to consult with the Ministry over the regulations. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the date of the letter?"] The letter from the Urban District Councils Association was dated 9th June. I sent each of these associations a draft of the Government's Amendment in accordance with an undertaking I gave to the House. They all expressed themselves as gratified, and as willing to confer on the drafting of the regulations. The letter from the County Councils Association states:
I will submit them to my Air-Raid Precautions Committee on Tuesday next with a view to obtaining the appointment of representatives to confer with the Ministry on the question of draft regulations.
When we have not had the first meeting of the conference on the draft regulations I suggest that it would be a mistake for the House to make it mandatory on the Department that these regulations should be published within three months. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) quoted the resolution of the association's A.R.P. committee passed at their meeting to-day, that they could see no reason

why eventually the regulations should not be published. While I am anxious to go as far as I can with the hon. Members who have moved the Amendment, I think it would be unreasonable to expect me to go as far as they suggest. The matter is governed not mainly by the regulations, but by the infinity of interviews and negotiations that are now taking place— interviews with voluntary societies for receiving the evacuees, and interviews with railway companies who are rapidly modifying time-tables. Only recently I accepted representations that a number of areas should be added to the evacuation areas, and that certain areas should be withdrawn from the reception areas. The railway companies warned us that the consequent amendment of the time-tables might take a month or two, or even longer.
Clearly the making of regulations in a technical sense might easily cut across the complicated arrangements for evacuation which I announced to the House only a few days ago. I will go as far as I can with hon. Members. It is my desire to discuss matters very fully with the local authorities, and to take into account any representations they might make. I will give a pledge to the House to do so. That is as far as I can go. If it is suggested that any part of the regulations should be put in draft I will see whether that can be done. I am as anxious as anyone in the Kingdom to see that this great movement, if it has to take place, shall run smoothly and sweetly. In deference to the views expressed by hon. Members opposite I will undertake to put forward in another place the suggestion that the penalty section of the Amendment should be amended so as to put in a definite penalty instead of an indefinite penalty, and I will suggest that the penalty might be that which is applied for non-compliance with similar billeting regulations. I should be prepared to specify that penalty not in the regulations but in the Statute, and that would go some distance to meet hon. Members. If I meet them on that point, and undertake to discuss the draft of the regulations in the fullest and frankest manner with the local authorities, to take into account any representations they may make, and to consider the desirability of publishing some part of the regulations, I suggest that I have met hon. Members very fully.

Dr. Guest: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to go outside the orthodox methods of discussion, and publish draft regulations, or attempt to get them published, in local newspapers? I am concerned with the idea of getting the people in the towns and villages, who will have to deal with evacuated population, understanding fully what they will have to do. More publicity would be of the greatest advantage.

Sir P. Harris: I appreciate the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman, and I realise that since his Department has taken over this difficult work he has been prepared to appreciate the difficulties of the local authorities both in evacuation and reception areas. But I am amazed now, in June, that the right hon. Gentleman apparently has not made up his mind yet on the form of the regulations. I was a member of the committee, of which the Lord Privy Seal was chairman, which was told to expedite its report last July because of the urgency of having machinery to deal with evacuation. We sat often six days a week, and pressed on with our evidence, and under the skilful guidance of the right hon. Gentleman we got our report ready last July. I am surprised at the form and character of this Amendment, which has taken the right hon. Gentleman three months to make up his mind about. I do not want to make difficulties or debating points. I realise that we are making history, and that this is a difficult problem which needs wise guidance if this machinery is to work smoothly if it comes into operation. But I think it is most necessary that the draft regulations should be made public, without more delay.
If we are going to have effective and efficient machinery from both ends the public should be taken into the confidence of the Government. In going about the country I find all sorts of questions being asked as to what evacuation implies and what are the obligations on householders in the matter of accommodation and the provision of food. I think that in June, 1939, a year after the committee reported, we ought to have the draft regulations and make them public. We are then much more likely to have the help and the active co-operation of local authorities and the good will of the public, which is vital. If these measures have to be put to the test the good will of the public is most

important. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, be up and doing. Three months will mean September next, and we may have another crisis. September is a critical month. I think we should have the regulations, and then they can be modified or altered and changed if necessary, but we are entitled to know what form the draft regulations will take.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I welcome the announcement from the Minister of Health that he is prepared in another place to insert in the Bill itself the extent of the penalties for breaches of the regulations. Paragraph (c) says:
authorise the imposition, on summary conviction, of penalties for failure to comply with any requirements imposed by or under the regulations.
There is absolutely no limit there. Under these words the Minister can impose the death penalty if he thinks fit. We had a long Debate on a similar proposal the other day on the Military Training Bill and I pointed out that it was entirely wrong to leave it to the discretion of a Government Department to say what the penalty should be for a breach of the regulations, whether it should be a fine or imprisonment. The question of the punishment to be imposed on His Majesty's subjects is a matter which should be decided by this House and by this House alone. But only a week or two after the Debate on the Military Training Bill a precisely similar proposal is brought forward again. It only shows how very little regard Government Departments have for what is said in this House. On the last occasion I was answered by the Attorney-General in these words:
Quite frankly, however, I agree with the principle. I think Acts ought to contain the maximum penalties that can be imposed under regulations."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1939; col. 1710, Vol. 347.]
This is an entirely new practice. Until the year 1937, even when we have given Departments the power to make regulations, we have always said in the Act itself what the penalty shall be for a breach of the regulations. It is only in the last two years that this new and vicious practice has grown up of saying that we will leave it to the people who frame the regulations to say what the penalties shall be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carry out his assurance


and, before the Bill becomes an Act, will provide exactly what the penalties are to be.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to thank the Minister for the way he has met the point raised in the Amendment to the Amendment, and to say on behalf of receiving authorities that we gladly accept the assurance he has given with regard to immediate negotiations. I am grateful to him for his undertaking that he will not, from any preconceived notions, budge at publishing the draft regulations when they have been agreed upon between himself and the Associations. We regard that as being very important, and in view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance on that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 54—(Special provisions as to supply of water for extinguishing fires.)

I0.21 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 50, line I, after "undertakers," to insert:
or persons carrying on any hydraulic power undertaking.
This Amendment would extend to hydraulic power companies the same immunity from the liability of having their own supplies of water taken as is given to the public utility undertakings. There have been a great many requests from such undertakers for this sort of immunity, which seems to be reasonable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 50, line 3, leave out "therefrom."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison,,]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 50, line 42, at the end, to insert:
and if they are so authorised, Section thirty of that Act (which confers power to stop up streets) shall apply accordingly.
This Amendment is put down at the request of the London County Council, who explained that the proposal to apply Section 30 of the Public Health (London) Act had been omitted by mistake from the proposals originally submitted by them. The county council say that it is

essential for the purpose of carrying out their scheme that they should have the power conferred by Section 30, which, I would remind the House, provides that the county council may, during the execution of any works by them under this part of the Act, cause the whole or part of a street to be stopped up, in so far as it may be necessary to do so for the execution of the works.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 57.—(Power of local authorities to appropriate lands and buildings for purposes of their civil defence functions.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 52, line 35, to leave out from "utility," to the end of line 36, and to insert:
undertakers who have been served with a notice under Part V of this Act.
This is very little more than a drafting Amendment. The effect of it would be to give to railway companies the same powers as are given to other public utility undertakers by the Clause. It was the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who obtained the inclusion of public utility undertakings in general in the Clause, and there seems to be no adequate reason why railway companies should not benefit to the same extent as other undertakings.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman said that the words which it is now proposed to leave out were originally inserted as a result of an Amendment moved by me in Committee. There appears to be no valid reason for denying to railway companies the advantages conferred on other public utility undertakers, and I hope the House will agree to the Amendment. I do not know whether it will be necessary to alter the marginal note to the Clause, which reads as it was when the Clause was originally drafted, and refers only to local authorities. For convenience of reference, I think it is desirable that it should refer to public utility undertakers as well.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am much obliged to the hon. Member.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:

In page 52, line 39, leave out "public utility undertaking," and insert "undertakers."

In page 53,line 1,leave out from "notice," to "as "in line 2.

In line 20, leave out" public utility undertaking,"and insert" the public utility undertakers."

In line 23, after "authorities," insert "or public utility undertakers."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison,]

CLAUSE 58.—(Amendment of Section 5 of Act of 1937.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 53, line 32, to leave out "quit," and to insert "treat."
This is really a drafting Amendment. The word "quit" was originally inserted in error for the word "treat." Section 145 of the Housing Act, 1936, provides for entry after serving a notice to treat, and "quit" was inserted instead of "treat."

Mr. Ede: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should never try to convince people on licensed premises that the words "quit," and "treat" mean the same thing?

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 59—(Compulsory hiring of land.)

10.27 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 54, line 12, to leave out from "of," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
the enactments having effect with respect to the compulsory acquisition of land by any such council as aforesaid for the purposes of their civil defence functions (including any such enactments contained in this Act) shall, with such exceptions and subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister under this Section, have effect with respect to the compulsory hiring of land by means of such an order.
(2) The Minister shall make regulations for the purposes of this Section and any such regulations may, in addition to prescribing the matters aforesaid, contain such provisions as the Minister considers necessary or expedient in connection with the making of any such orders or the carrying thereof into effect.
This Clause was accepted in Committee on the Motion of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). After a comparatively short discussion its terms were agreed to on the understanding that they might have to be looked into again later. They have been the subject of very close discussion with

those who originally suggested the terms of the draft, and the conclusion has been reached that the Clause in the form in which it was inserted in the Bill would hardly be workable. There has not been time since the Clause was put into the Bill to work out fully the detailed procedure which would be required under an adaptation of the ordinary provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land or buildings to the case of compulsory hiring, and in this Amendment we propose to take powers to set up the necessary procedure by a regulation. The only precedent for this compulsory hiring Clause is to be found in Section 39 of the Smallholdings and Allotments Act, 1908. That Section enables district councils to acquire agricultural land compulsorily by an Order confirmed by the Board of Agriculture. Under that Act wide powers were given to the Board to make regulations for the purpose of carrying the Order into effect. The regulations that have been made contain a fairly comprehensive code and if this Amendment is accepted it would be proposed to make the regulations follow as closely as may be those made under the Smallholdings and Allotments Act, which I am assured have worked satisfactorily.
One or two points in the Amendment, perhaps, call for some more detailed explanation than I have yet given. In the first place it will be noticed that there is no express mention of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. That Act can be applied for the purposes of the Clause by regulation because it is an Act that affects the development of land by the local authorities concerned, and the extent to which the provisions of that Act and any other enactment can be applied to the Clause will be decided by the code and the regulations.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I want to make only two observations about this Amendment. First of all, it is provided that it shall have effect
with such exceptions and subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister under this Section.
This is a proposal to enable the Minister 10 modify the terms of an Act of Parliament. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I wish to enter a protest


against this practice being followed. This is an occasion when these things are brought forward, not in the original Bill but in an Amendment at a very late stage of the proceedings. In Sub-section (2) of the Amendment it is provided that the Minister shall make regulations which are to contain
such provisions as the Minister considers necessary or expedient in connection with the making of any such orders or the carrying thereof into effect.
There, again, the Minister is made the sole judge as to the regulations which are necessary. The words are much too wide and everything necessary would be achieved if the Sub-section were to read:
contain such provisions as may be necessary or expedient
That is a common form of words. It is going very much too far to leave the matter within the discretion of the Minister.

10.33 P.m.

Mr. Spens: This part of the Bill continues the system of compulsory hiring of land instead of the compulsory acquisition of land, a system which the Government gradually introduced into Bills in which the authorities take over the land of the subject. There have been very grave complaints about the way in which compulsory hiring of land has been used by the Executive. There is no limit to the time for which the land may be taken and during which it is sterilised for public purposes. The practice often affects adjoining land, and does not work out nearly as fair as does the compulsory acquisition of land. I view with great suspicion a Clause which comes from the other side of the House and which was suggested in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and adopted by the Government. We need to watch most carefully the way in which compulsory hiring is being substituted for compulsory acquisition of land with its well-known compensation Clauses.

10.35 P.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: As Clause 59 is the Clause which I moved on behalf of the London County Council and other local authorities, and which was accepted by the Government in principle, subject to Amendments, perhaps I ought to say a word about it, though I must be discreet

in the circumstances of the case. I do not complain that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) should utter one or two words of traditional caution about the substance of the Clause and about the Amendment of the Lord Privy Seal. I understand and respect their traditional objections, though I do not necessarily agree with them. The House must, however, understand the difficulty with which local authorities are faced in the discharge of some of their civil defence functions. Since the passing of the Act of 1937, we have had obligations to carry out a large number of new, difficult and onerous duties. Among those duties has been the organisation in London, for example, of an auxiliary fire service, which has meant the multiplication by nearly 15 within 18 months of the permanent personnel of the London Fire Brigade.
If we have to have this army of auxiliary firemen, consisting now of nearly 30,000, and consisting in the future of more than 30,000, it may be even 50,000 persons, we need premises in which they can have their training, in which they can exercise, and in which they can have a certain amount of social recreation. We have been criticised, and the Government have been criticised, on the ground that there is admittedly utterly insufficient accommodation for these auxiliary fire service people, and one of the difficulties has been that up to the passing of this Measure, we have had no compulsory powers of purchase and no compulsory powers of hiring. While I do not wish to make any genera] charge against property owners in London, it is the case that, when they are approached by public authorities to sell, and particularly to let, while many of them are willing to be helpful to the public interest, some are sticky, some think it is an opportunity to do well, and some are backward in fitting in with the public needs. The issue before the House in principle on the Clause is, are these duties to be discharged or not? There is the possibility that, if war came, the London Fire Brigade organisation would not have the three or four first-class fires as a maximum that we now have to deal with in time of peace, but hundreds, even thousands of fires, and I tremble for the safety of this city if that auxiliary


service is not adequately equipped and efficient.
In spite of the fact that the majority of the London County Council is of a different political complexion from His Majesty's Government, I think the Lord Privy Seal and other Ministers will agree that we have tried genuinely to cooperate with the Government in the discharge of our civil defence functions. If we, on the one hand, have tried to discharge our duty, it is the duty of the House of Commons to give us reasonable powers, subject to proper safeguards, for either the acquisition or the hiring of property if that is vitally necessary in the public interest. In these times of stress, of possible emergency and possible great difficulty, just as we have had to stretch our principles a little in the national interest, so it is au obligation on hon. Members opposite to be willing to stretch their principles in the national interest and show some adaptability.
The problem of compulsory purchase is that, while it is appropriate in some cases, it will be a serious difficulty if we can only purchase outright for good, and if we have no powers of compulsory hiring. It is the case, as every hon. Member recognises, that either this situation of crisis through which we are passing will be solved in a limited time or the world will blow up. I do not want the county councils to be left in the permanent position of having a lot of property—though hon. Members opposite may think that that is what I would like—the possession of which really would not be in the public interest. Therefore, powers of compulsory hiring are necessary, in the interests not merely of the ratepayers of London but of the Exchequer. Hon. Members on the other side who spoke for agricultural constituencies, with experience of agriculture, have said that, from their point of view, hiring might be preferable to purchase, and an hon. Member was good enough to intervene and say that he had some personal knowledge of the difficulties which had existed for months at the Knights-bridge Fire Station, and he begged the House to give us these powers. I am glad to be able to tell him that we have partly solved those difficulties.
There is the constitutional point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), which I perfectly understand, and about which I am not going to quarrel

bitterly with him, but I know, from consultations with the officers at County Hall and from their consultations with the Minister's officers, that this is a case where it is difficult to get precise words in the Statute which will necessarily meet all the difficulties that may arise. In such circumstances, Parliament has frequently resorted to the device of empowering the Minister, within proper limits, to make regulations. There is the danger that if you make the Statute too rigid you will land yourselves in difficulties that may be embarrassing. I would rather have had complete sweeping powers to do what we like about the hiring of properties, and not be at the mercy of the Minister, who belongs to a Government with which I disagree, but, having regard to his difficulties and having regard to the majority with which he has to live in this House, I shall not too much blame him if he is not going to give us the sweeping powers that we would like but insists on retaining control by making regulations. Therefore, while the hon. Member for Dundee is upholding those constitutional principles for which he is famous in the House, I think it is right that the Minister should retain the power to make regulations, and, while some hon. Members may be a little apprehensive about it, I earnestly hope that, in the public interest, the House of Commons will accept the Clause. We on this side will accept the Minister's Amendment, and I ask the House to give us the Clause, in the hope that it will solve onerous difficulties, not only in London but in other parts of the country.

Amendment agreed to.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 54, line 33, after "landlord," to insert:
(otherwise than for breach of any of the conditions of the tenancy).
If the House will look at the Clause, it will be seen that Sub-section (4) defines the land to which the Clause applies. The land there prescribed is
unoccupied land and land in the occupation of a tenant whose tenancy thereof will expire or can be determined by his landlord within a period of three years after the making of an order.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make it plain that the right of the landlord to determine the tenancy for breach of the covenant does not of itself bring


the land into the category described in the Sub-section. It is really a matter of drafting, but I thought I had better give that explanation of it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 63—(Compensation in the event of injury to persons engaged in air-raid precautions activities.)

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 56, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (4).
This is the first opportunity which the House has had of discussing the principle underlying this Clause. It is provided that the Treasury may make a scheme for compensating persons who are injured in the course of being trained in respect of air-raid precautions or of other Defence functions in which local authorities are concerned. I am really interested in Subsection (4), to which my Amendment refers, where it is provided that:
Where any injury to which this Section applies is sustained by any person, no compensation or damages shall be payable in respect of that injury, whether under any Act, or at common law, by the employer of the injured person or by any person who is training or exercising, or being trained or exercised together with, the injured person.
The House ought to have some explanation why that Sub-section should be included. In the ordinary way, as the House is well aware, when somebody is injured in the course of any employment there are three possible remedies open to him. He can sue for damages either at common law or for breach of statutory duty if he can prove either negligence or breach on the part of his employer. Secondly, he may be able to proceed under the Employers Liability Act, and, thirdly, he can apply for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under Clause 63 persons concerned are deprived of all those rights, so that they will not be able to sue for damages or to apply either under the Employers Liability Act or for workmen's compensation. They are left entirely at the mercy of some scheme which at some future time is to be framed by the Treasury. We have not the slightest idea what that scheme is to be. We do not know what the scale of compensation or damages is going to be.
I cannot see any reason at all why this Clause should be included. I should have

thought that, if a person was injured in the course of training or exercise in respect of air-raid precautions, he might safely be left to the remedies which the law "now provides. I cannot see why you should step in and endeavour to deprive him of what is due to him under our existing law. This is the kind of Clause which is constantly being presented to us. We ought to have some explanation as to why it is sought to set aside all the ordinary machinery of the law and to substitute something about which we know nothing at all. Before the House allows a Clause of this kind to go through in its present form, we ought to have some explanation. We ought to be told what scale of compensation is envisaged under the Treasury scheme. It ought not to be left to the discretion of the Treasury at some future time to decide what the rights of these people shall be, and it is for these reasons that I move the Amendment.

Sir P. Harris: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I would like to add a few words in support of the case which has been put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). This Clause is altogether indefinite, and it is due to the Minister to clarify its meaning and to let the House know exactly what he understands the provisions of the Clause will do. As I read this Clause, once it becomes law the workman has no rights of compensation. As the House knows, A.R.P. activities are now vested in local authorities; they provide the machinery, and they appeal for men. But it so happens that many' workmen of the local authorities have enlisted for this work, and they are in considerable doubt and anxiety as to what their position is going to be. Accidents have already taken place among workmen in training and in preparation for A.R.P., and the local authorities have made ex gratia payments in respect of those accidents. I have here a letter from the town clerk of a very large local authority, in which he states that an accident occurred not long ago, and they made an ex gratia payment. It is very necessary that these men should know what position they are in, and that their interests should be adequately safeguarded.
Under this Clause we protect the trainer of the persons who are under training, it is sought to protect the local authority by


an Amendment that is to be moved later, we protect the workman's ordinary employer, but we do not seem to have given any protection to the person who is really doing the work. I should also like to know from the Minister whether he proposes to make this scheme retrospective. We ought to know as early as possible what this scheme is, what it will do, whether under it the compensation paid will be less than the present rates, and generally what the scale is.

10.53 P.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The last thing we want to do is to deprive the House of any information that is wanted on this Clause. When the Bill was in Committee no hon. Members asked me anything about it, so I assumed that they had the necessary knowledge. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said we ought to have an explanation because under the Clause persons would be deprived of their existing rights and would be left at the mercy of some scheme of a completely unspecified nature made by the Treasury at some future time. It is not of an unspecified nature at all. If the hon. Member will look at the Official Report for 2nd March he will find that the Lord Privy Seal made a statement in very great detail as to what the general effect of the compensation is going to be, stating exactly how much was to be paid for this kind of compensation and that kind of compensation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would study that, and I think he would find the answer to his question there. What is more, in the very brief discussion we had on this Clause in Committee I gave the assurance that before the scheme was made definite it should be shown in its early stages to the local authorities, who would be able to make comments upon it, and, further than that, the Clause would be subject to the regulations as laid down in an earlier Part of the Bill. So that this is not a hole-and-corner scheme at all. Its general outline has been already exposed to the public gaze, there will be opportunity for further discussion, and the ultimate decision will lie with the House. 
It is quite true that the Clause does take away what the hon. Gentleman called the distinct rights of compensation which exist to-day for injuries incurred by workmen. That, of course, is the case, and the reason why it is being done is because the scheme

to which I have referred gives a uniform basis of compensation at Government expense. This is to be paid for out of the Vote and it is in substitution for a whole variety of schemes which exists to-day. To-day, in some cases, a claim for compensation may lie under the Workmen's Compensation Act; in other cases claims may lie, because local authorities have taken out some sort of policy to cover their employés who have gone up for this voluntary service; there may be cases in which there is a valid claim under some other enactment, and there may be cases in which there is no entitlement to any form of compensation.

Dr. Guest: Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that this applies only to voluntary personnel, because a great many of the people doing this work are paid?

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps I was running on to my next note with regard to third party claims, and if so I apologise. I was saying that at present there might be claims under workmen's compensation law, or under a local authority's policy, or under some other enactment, or in some cases none at all. Instead of all this heterogeneous mass of possibilities of compensation, we propose that there should be a uniform code of compensation for all these volunteers. That has already been announced in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd March. The purpose of this Subsection is to avoid double entitlement and it seems reasonable. The compensation, I may add, will in some instances be on a more generous scale and in no instance on a less generous scale than workmen's compensation allowances.

Mr. Foot: How would it compare with the damages which a man might recover at common law?

Captain Crookshank: I am talking about workmen's compensation at the moment.

Mr. Mainwaring: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that in many cases it may be more generous than workmen's compensation allowances. Does that mean that an unemployed man who is injured will get the same rate of compensation as an employed man?

Captain Crookshank: The scale was laid down in the reply given by my hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. It has,


of course, no relation to workmen s compensation. I am merely saying that the actual amounts payable under this scheme will be as good as the scale which, in other circumstances, would be payable under workmen's compensation law, except in those cases in which they are better. I am making the point that this is an alternative which covers the whole field. It is to avoid the possibility of double entitlement and the rest of it, that this Sub-section is placed in the Clause. Instead of a variety of schemes there will be a general compensation scheme covering everybody in this category. I hope I have made it clear to hon. Members. [Hon. Members: "No."] This scheme, at Government expense, will take the place of the different schemes which exist to-day.

Mr. Foot: If you take the analogy of workmen's compensation law, the workman in that case has an alternative. He can sue for damages at common law or apply for workmen's compensation. Nobody suggests that there should be a duplication of compensation for damages, but you are providing here that a man may only apply under this scheme and you deprive him altogether of his rights at common law. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether there is any precedent or any justification for that.

11.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I think we must remember that the volunteers who are being trained are volunteering to do this work and are being trained for Civil Defence, and are to come within the scheme if they should be injured—one hopes they will not be, because when you come to the question of training, a great deal of care is likely to be taken, and always would be taken, to see that there is a minimum amount of risk for trainees while they are being trained. I think the House will be well advised not to accept this Amendment, on the ground that we are offering under our scheme good terms for the whole of the class which we are trying to cover, some of whom would have nothing to do with workmen's compensation or any other kind of liability for injury. The case depends on the circumstances of the case, and under the scheme which we have outlined the compensation depends on the physical injury and not on the basis of earning

power. I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary, therefore, to press his Amendment.

Mr. Marshall: When will the scheme come into operation? Will it be retrospective?

Captain Crookshank: It will not be retrospective, but I think that in such cases as have occurred ex gratia payments have been made. It will not, of course, come into effect until after the legislation is passed.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not quite correct in all the statements that he has made in regard to this scheme. It is certainly not confined to volunteers but does include a number of employés of local authorities who are actually in the discharge of their duty.

Captain Crookshank: That is true. It is wide enough to cover a good number of what one might call border-line cases.

Mr. Ede: I do not know what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman means by border-line cases. It does cover the case of ordinary firemen who, in the course of their duty to the local authority, are engaged in training or exercising auxiliary firemen. What has not yet been decided —and this is one of the difficulties that confront those who have to administer the scheme—is the position of the regular fireman who takes some auxiliary fireman with him to an ordinary fire in the hope that, by getting practical experience, the latter may be improved in his training, and who in such circumstances suffers some injury. Is he at that time following his avocation as an ordinary fireman with the rights that he will get for injury following his avocation, or is he training or exercising volunteers who are being trained for the purposes of the Act? There are a number of employés of local authorities, regular employés, who will be brought into this scheme because they are training or exercising people in the course of the regular employés' ordinary regular employment and may find themselves taken out of the ordinary compensation law as the result of that. The House wants to be assured that the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal, and repeated to-night by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is in fact


capable of application in the widest possible sense. Can we be assured that these people will get, as the result of this scheme, at least the compensation or damages which would have been awarded in the civil courts had they brought an action there?
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in the absence at this end of the bench of any of the Law Officers, is, I gather, endeavouring to assist me by assuring me that these people are not assured under this Clause of as much in certain cases as they could get under some other enactments. That, I am sure, is not the desire of the House nor of the local authorities. I am sure that the House and the local authorities are exceedingly desirous that no ordinary employé of a local authority should get less in the way of compensation or damages under this scheme than he would be entitled to if he proceeded in the civil courts. That is why I am anxious to find out how far the Amendment is justified in its endeavour to protect the rights of the ordinary employ of a local authority. I gather that the sums mentioned on 2nd March, by which a widow with dependent children can get £600 in the case of air-raid precaution service, other than auxiliary firemen, and £1,000 in the case of auxiliary firemen, do not represent the same sums as these people would get if they had other remedies open to them.
I think the feeling on this side certainly is that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not reassured the House on that point. I hope the feeling of the House is that none of these people who suffer injury because they are called up by the local authorities, whether as volunteers or in their ordinary capacity to train or to exercise others, will be deprived of any of the rights to which they would be entitled under other enactments because of the peculiar circumstances in which the injury may be inflicted upon them.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I hope the hon. Gentleman will persist with the Amendment. I think the reply has made it abundantly clear that an injustice is being contemplated. I am putting forward that proposition with a full sense of responsibility and I believe it to be true. I grant, to start with, that there are a great many cases under these transactions in which it is extremely doubtful whether an in-

jured person would have any claim of any kind either at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other enactment, and I quite recognize—I give the Government every credit for it—that under the Clause they have attempted to deal with those cases in which, owing to the peculiar nature of the matters with which we are dealing, there is no legal right at all.
I am perfectly prepared to accept the assurance that in those cases where, but for this Clause, there would be no legal right, they are contemplating a scheme which shall be not less favourable to the injured person than a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act would be. What I cannot understand is why the Government were not content to legislate only for that class of case in which the existing law afforded no remedy. Why was it necessary to take away from people who had a right under the existing law the right which they had in order to give other rights to other people who did not possess them? The right hon. Gentleman's speech made it plain that in an appropriate case the injured person or the dependants of a fatally injured person would lose the difference between what they were entitled to under the Workmen's Compensation Act and what they would be entitled to under common law, and it is plain that a serious injustice would be done. Anybody who has any experience of these matters knows that the amounts recovered under common law are far in excess of the hopelessly meagre and inadequate allowances which existing compensation law offers. What the Clause does is to take away from those people their rights and to substitute for them something which is less. When the Minister says it is not a hole-and-corner scheme I do not follow him. I know he says that in March last a Minister told us what was contemplated, but I find in Clause 63, Sub-section (3) it is stated:
A scheme under Sub-section (2) of this Section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent scheme made there under.
That means that the Government might at any time after they have adopted the scheme contemplated in the speech referred to, revoke that scheme and substitute for it something else over which this House will have no control. I suggest to the Government that their Clause would be infinitely


better without Sub-section (4). There would then be this result, which I think would commend itself to the House, that anyone who had a claim under existing law could avail himself of that claim, and anyone who had not such a claim could avail himself of the scheme. I do not understand why the Government are not content with that. If they want anything more there must be the result that while on the one hand they will be legislating to fill a gap, at the same time they will be causing great injustice by taking away from people without any justification the rights they now enjoy.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring: I do not think any trade union official who has had experience of law would be likely to rely over much on what legal gentlemen told them about the law. There is one point which is very ominous in these discussions. The Financial Secretary has referred to discussions which have taken place with interested parties on this point. He has suggested that the terms of this scheme are known outside this House. Why cannot hon. Members have this knowledge?

Captain Crookshank: A considered statement was made in the House on 2nd March.

Mr. Mainwaring: What about the details of the scheme?

Captain Crookshank: They are all there.

Mr. Mainwaring: Why cannot we discuss them? It has been the same in previous cases—discussions have taken place with people outside this House. When are hon. Members to be taken into the confidence of the Government? This scheme of compensation is necessary. I am not satisfied with the law as it stands at present. I cannot see an unemployed man on air-raid precautions having an employer to proceed against. There can be no claim for compensation, and therefore the scheme outlined by the Financial Secretary is necessary. Whether it is all that we desire is another matter. That is why I should like to know the details.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am reluctant to detain the House at this late hour but I feel that I should not be doing right if

I did not express a certain amount of disquiet at the insistence of the Government in retaining the Clause in its present form. I cannot believe that the House has clearly before it the full description of the rights it is proposed to abrogate by Sub-section (4), which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is proposing to leave out. Under the law which it is proposed to abrogate by Sub-section (4) a person who is injured as a result of his activities is entitled to take one of two courses. If he cannot lay the blame at the door of anybody else he is entitled to workmen's compensation, that is to compensation on a scale which will never adequately compensate him for the injury he has received.
Hon. Members opposite know that under the scale of workmen's compensation a man may sometimes get no more than, sometimes not as much as, half of the wages he was earning at the time of the accident. If, on the other hand, he can lay the blame on somebody else, if he can say that the accident was the fault of somebody else, through negligence or a breach of a statutory duty, he is entitled not to workmen's compensation but to damages, which gives him, as far as the law can give it at all, full compensation for all that he has suffered by his accident; compensation for his pain and suffering and a capital sum of money to compensate him for every penny of earnings he has lost, or likely to lose as the result of a permanent injury- He is not able, under the existing law, to pursue that remedy if he himself is to blame in any way, or in any manner has contributed to the accident, so that it is only if he can lay it at somebody' else's door, and lay it at somebody else's door without blame attaching to himself, that he is entitled to this full form of compensation.
The Clause as it is drafted at present proposes to abrogate that right, and I want to know why. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has explained to us that it is much more convenient to avoid this heterogeneous mass of different rights. He has told us and I agree with him, that it is possibly more convenient to substitute a special scheme for workmen's compensation which may be more generous; but what the House must know, and what is obvious at the present stage, is that the right to complete compensation is being abrogated by this Sub-


section, and it is proposed to substitute for it a scale of remuneration which, although it may be slightly more' generous than workmen's compensation, does not in any case amount to complete indemnity.
The Financial Secretary has said that some importance is to be attached to the fact that part at any rate of those who are affected by this Sub-section are voluntary workers. I cannot see that that makes the slightest difference; if it did make any difference I should have thought that the House would be more generous to those who give their service voluntarily than to those who do it on a professional basis. Speaking for myself, I have not heard from the Financial Secretary any reason whatever why those who would be entitled to full indemnity in respect of the fault of others should lose that right simply because they are working for their country in respect of Civil Defence.

11.23 P.m.

Mr. Greenwood: This Debate, I think, has put the Government in a very unfortunate and very unsatisfactory situation. I listened to the Financial Secretary's speech, but I am bound to say that he did not convince me. The more we discuss this Bill, the more unsatisfactory does this system of legislation become. There are hon. Members who have overlooked the fact that in the Official Report of 2nd March, column 1471, there is set out in great detail a scheme which is referred to very indirectly in Sub-section (2) of this Clause. This kind of legislation by accretion of things that have been said in the House seems to me to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. It may well be that, as the Financial Secretary said, certain people would be better off under the Government's scheme, which after all is at present only an answer to a question, and has no kind of statutory authority. It may be said that there are powers to amend or improve it, or to make it worse, but even this scheme has no authority whatever until it is put into operation by the Government.
Even if this scheme were adopted, and even if it were true, as the Financial Secretary said, that certain people would be better off under it, it seems to me to be a precedent. I think we ought to have a whole row of Law Officers of the Crown here on this matter. Are there any pre-

cedents in any Act of Parliament whereby people who are giving service to their country have been denied their rights at Common Law? If it be true we should like to know the precedent, and if it be untrue that there is any precedent I suggest that the Government are now taking a step which is revolutionary in character. The situation is so unsatisfactory that I should like to move the Adjournment of the Debate in order to give the Government an opportunity of discussing the situation.

11.26 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: With the leave of the House I will answer briefly the two or three points which have been made. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any kind of precedent for this. The answer, of course, is that we are dealing here for the first time with people training for Civil Defence, and in these cases the Government are going to frame the compensation scheme. It is really analogous to what happens in the fighting services. In the fighting services I understand that the common law rights to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers are not maintained. [Interruption.] This has nothing to do with the private employer. This is dealing with a man during the time of his training in peace time.

Mr. Greenwood: This applies to persons acting in a voluntary capacity, and that is different from the position in the fighting services.

Captain Crookshank: There are the Territorials and services of that kind which one can think of. This is different from what one might call an ordinary job in civil life. In this case we are concerned with an injury suffered by a man who is being trained for voluntary service and in that respect it is analogous to the position in the fighting services. I am glad that it is admitted that the scheme proposed is a generous scheme.[Hon. Members: "No."] Certainly I am surprised to hear that there is criticism of the scheme on that point, because it has never been raised before. The matter has been before the House on two occasions, and no one has made any comment from that point of view. As to the complaint that this is all being done without explanation, I must remind the House that my right hon. Friend made a long statement about it which is on record, and that when the Clause subsequently


came up in the Committee stage no reference was made to the matter at all. After the legislation is passed the scheme will be in draft—and here I come to a point which is relevant to some of the issues which have been raised—and it will lay down the provisions for the persons who are described in the first Sub-section of the Clause as suffering personal injuries
sustained in time of peace by such persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in a scheme made under Sub-section (2) of this Section.
It may be that it will be possible to draw the scheme in such a way as to preserve some of the rights about which the hon. and learned Gentleman is so anxious.

Mr. Pritt: Or it may not.

Mr. Silverman: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either the answer to the question to which he has referred contains the scheme or it does not, and there is not a single word in that answer to indicate that the scheme would be so drafted as to preserve those rights about whose abrogation we are complaining, because if the scheme did provide for that obviously the whole basis of the complaint made would have gone.

Mr. Foot: Under Sub-section (4) it is specifically provided that no compensation or damages shall be payable in respect of any injury, whether under any Act or at common law. How can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that any provisions made by a scheme can override that? Really, he should lave read the Clause before he attempted:o address the House upon it.

Captain Crookshank: The House is in complete control of this matter. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government can change the scheme at any time, but the scheme has to come before the House.

Mr. Silverman: Where is it provided hat it must come before the House?

Captain Crookshank: If the House objects to it the scheme cannot get through. This is not in this Clause, but n the general Clause. The matter was raised, and the assurance was given that hat would be the case; the House is not losing control of this matter at all. When be legislation is passed there will then

be a draft scheme, because consultation will take place, and it will then be before the House and the House will have control. If it is to be amended at some future date the House will likewise have control on that occasion. Really it is straining language very far to say that this is a matter of which the House will have no knowledge. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench that there are special cases which will have to be dealt with, and there is general agreement about that, and not only in the cases he mentioned. This is a complicated and technical matter to discuss, but a person who is an employé of the kind referred to certainly would have to have this right preserved in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman. There are other cases on the border line, and naturally they will receive consideration. The real point is that we thought it was right to ensure a uniform and comprehensive method of treating these cases, and that is the object of the Clause in the Bill.

11.33P.m.

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman noted the point that the regular fireman who has been included in the scheme will not get the rate of benefit available for the auxiliary fireman? The regular fireman comes under the category of a member of an A.R.P. service other than an auxiliary fireman. It would be the height of ridiculousness in the case of injury for the auxiliary fireman to be compensated at one rate and the regular fireman who was giving him instruction and whose whole professional career might be stopped, to be compensated at the lower rate.

11.34p.m.

Mr. Pritt: The position:is extremely unsatisfactory, and on the question of principle I would like to adapt the arguments that were used by the hon. Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and to add one or two comments with which I have no doubt he will agree. Clauses which propose to take away, blindly and sweepingly., existing rights have always to be regarded with the utmost anxiety, and are detested alike by the legislature and the courts. The other point is that, if the excuse fordoing this is in order to avoid the complications of a heterogeneous mass of different rights, some of them adequate


and some of them inadequate, the remedy is not to deprive men blindly of rights which happen to be fair and generous, but to get our law generally into something like proper shape. With regard to the speech of the Financial Secretary, the Government's perfectly abominable meanness in the treatment of people who deserve the utmost generosity in every conceivable way, who are going voluntarily into a position of great danger, quite out of their ordinary line of life, in order to back up the Government's foreign policy, is shown by the fact that, if they get killed, the Government's method is to deprive them of every legal right that they otherwise would have, in exchange for a scheme which does not yet exist, and which, according to the announcement which has been made with regard to it, will not mention at all one large class, namely the nursing service. The Government pretend that the House will still have control over the matter because at one o'clock some morning it will be laid on the Table to see whether the House wants to reject it, when a majority of the House will be forced into the Government Lobby by the Whips.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeded to see whether he could find a precedent, and he finds one in the Fighting Services. One can only assume that he was told to make the best case he could, and it was an extremely bad case. People who enlist in the Fighting Services as their profession run risks as part of what they undertake. It may be a bad bargain for them, but it is the life they undertake, and if they get killed there is some more or less inadequate compensation for their dependants, of which in due course they will be cheated if possible by the Ministry of Pensions. These other people are now to be treated in much the same way as those who have been forced by patriotism or poverty to embark on a profession of this kind under

certain conditions as to compensation. It is said that some of these forms of compensation are more generous than workmen's compensation. If the right hon. Gentleman had his hand taken off in a machine, or anything of that sort, he could not be under any illusion that something that was more than workmen's compensation was therefore generous. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) will press his Amendment to a Division, so that we may see how many hon. Members opposite who in their hearts know that this is an abominable injustice will advertise themselves to their constituents as thinking that this thing ought to remain in the Act.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Patronage Secretary whether, in view of the very unsatisfactory statements that have been made from the Government Front Bench, and in view of the very great progress we have made, the Debate on this Amendment could now be adjourned?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I should have thought that after the discussion that has taken place it would be as well to bring the matter to a conclusion now. So far as I can understand the position, there is no alteration in the minds of hon. Members and therefore, I can see no advantage in adjourning the matter until to-morrow.

Mr. Greenwood: If the House wishes to remain in the muddle it is in, we shall have to accede to that, and we shall be prepared to go to a Division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' or,' in line 27, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 96.

Division No. 171.]
AYES.
[11.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Albery, Sir Irving
Bracken, B.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Braithwaite, J.Gurney (Holderness)
Colman, N. C. D.


Anderson, Sir A. Garret! (C. of Ldn.)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cooper, Rl. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)


Assheton, R.
Brook*, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bull, B. B.
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Burghley, Lord
Crooks, Sir J. Smedley


Balniel, Lord
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cruddas, Col. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Culverwell, C. T.


Bossom, A.C.
Carver, Major W. H.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Boulton, W W.
Cary, R. A.
Duggan, H. J.




Duncan, J. A. L
Leech, Sir J. W.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, E. W.


Eckersley, P. T.
Liddall, W. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lipson, D. L.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Ellis, Sir G.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Selley, H. R.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Loftus, P. C.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shute, Colonel Sir J, J.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
McCorquodale, M. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Fleming, E. L.
Maedonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Gledhill, G.
Magnay, T.
Spens. W. P


Greene, W. P. C.(Worcester)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Storey, S.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hambro, A. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hammersley, S. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hannah, 1. C.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Harbord, Sir A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, P.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Nail, Sir J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Nicolson. Hon. H. G.
Turton, R. H.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Neill, Fit. Hon. Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Higgs. W. F.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Holmes, J. S.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, C. U.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Procter, Major H. A.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Hunter, T.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Jennings, R.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Kellett, Major E. 0.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wragg, H.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Kimball, L.
Ropner, Colonel L.



Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Rowlands, G.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Grimston.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Guest. Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parker, J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pearson, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pethick Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Isaacs, G. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Collindridge, F.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O.(Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
White, H. Graham


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Ernest Evans.


Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."—[Captain Margesson.]

Bill, as amended (in the Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (AMENDMENT) ORDER).

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th June]:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935. praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC TRUSTEE (GENERAL DEPOSIT FUND) (Re-Committed) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords]

Ordered, That the Lords Message [7th June] communicating the Resolution, "That it is desirable that the Water Undertakings Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," be now considered.— [Mr. James Stuart.]

Lords' Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.— [Mr. James Stuart.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the-Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes, before Twelve o'Clock